This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27388076

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Legal Aid cuts: Appeal over decision to halt fraud trial Legal Aid cuts: Appeal over decision to halt fraud trial
(about 2 hours later)
The Court of Appeal is hearing a legal challenge against a judge's decision to halt a serious fraud trial after the defendants said legal aid cuts meant they could not find barristers to represent them.The Court of Appeal is hearing a legal challenge against a judge's decision to halt a serious fraud trial after the defendants said legal aid cuts meant they could not find barristers to represent them.
The Financial Conduct Authority, which is prosecuting, is seeking to overturn the ruling by Judge Anthony Leonard.The Financial Conduct Authority, which is prosecuting, is seeking to overturn the ruling by Judge Anthony Leonard.
Legal aid fees in England and Wales have been cut by up to 30%.Legal aid fees in England and Wales have been cut by up to 30%.
This has seen many barristers refusing to take on long or complex cases.This has seen many barristers refusing to take on long or complex cases.
At the appeal hearing, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) argued Judge Leonard's decision had been "unreasonable" and should be reversed. Leading judges Sir Brian Leveson, Lord Justice Davis and Lord Justice Treacy are being urged to overturn the decision taken by Judge Leonard to halt the case.
The judge had ruled it would be a "violation" of the legal process to allow the prosecution on an alleged £4.9m land fraud to proceed. Judge Leonard had heard the prime minister's brother, Alexander Cameron QC, successfully argue that the case should be halted because five of the eight defendants in the case could not find barristers of "sufficient competence".
The original case was brought last year by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) against eight men, five of whom were subject to the ruling. The trial, involving the alleged mis-selling of land by Plott UK Ltd, European Property Investments Ltd and Stirling Alexander Ltd between 2008 and 2011, is a so-called Very High Cost Case (VHCC).
It concerned the activities of Plott UK Ltd, European Property Investments Ltd and Stirling Alexander Ltd between 2008 and 2011. Fees for such long and complex cases have been cut as part of Ministry of Justice plans to trim its £2bn-a-year legal aid bill.
'Beyond question' 'Violation'
The Ministry of Justice has been seeking to trim its £2bn-a-year legal aid bill. Barristers have since been refusing to take on the most complex cases, which run up high costs due to the amount of preparation and court time they involve.
It says its proposals - due to come into effect after the summer of 2015 - would cut fees in complex, high-cost cases by up to 30%, and in other crown court work by up to 18%. In their search for suitable representation, the defence team contacted 70 chambers. Only one barrister put himself forward, but later withdrew his services.
In protest at the 30% cuts, barristers are refusing to take on the most complex cases, which run up high costs due to the amount of preparation and court time they involve. Judge Leonard said he had no reason to think the defendants would be able to find suitably qualified barristers and it would be a "violation" of the legal process to allow the prosecution to proceed.
In their search for suitable representation, the defence team in the fraud case had contacted 70 barrister chambers. Only one barrister put himself forward, but he later withdrew his services. But the FCA told the appeal hearing that Judge Leonard's decision had been "unreasonable" and should be reversed.
It had been feared the defendants would have to defend themselves - but prosecutors agreed this would have been a breach of their human rights.
The Ministry of Justice said the government has made sure that the Public Defender Service (PDS) had a number of suitably qualified lawyers who could act in this case.
But in his ruling, Judge Leonard said it was "beyond question" that the PDS was "not in a position to provide sufficient representation", and he refused to adjourn the case.
Public interest
The case against the men was "complex and substantial", the court heard, involving 46,030 pages of evidence and 864,000 lines of spreadsheet data.
Attempting to overturn Judge Leonard's order, Sean Larkin QC, for the FCA, told the Court of Appeal it had the power to confirm, reverse or vary the decision to stay the proceedings.Attempting to overturn Judge Leonard's order, Sean Larkin QC, for the FCA, told the Court of Appeal it had the power to confirm, reverse or vary the decision to stay the proceedings.
He said: "The judge erred in principle and came to an unreasonable decision. We want you simply to reverse the stay and that will have the effect of this matter going back before the judge at some time in the future for him to consider how best to progress the case."He said: "The judge erred in principle and came to an unreasonable decision. We want you simply to reverse the stay and that will have the effect of this matter going back before the judge at some time in the future for him to consider how best to progress the case."
He argued that the public interest required a lesser remedy - an adjournment - in the case.He argued that the public interest required a lesser remedy - an adjournment - in the case.
Sir Brian Leveson said it was not the court's job to get involved in the dispute between the barristers and the government.
He said: "We are simply concerned in this case with whether the judge was entitled to reach this conclusion at this time on the evidence then before him."
The stand-off over fees could affect other fraud trials due to take place. The FCA has said four defendants in a trial scheduled for September are currently unrepresented, and the Crown Prosecution Service has three fraud-related cases in which there are also no defence barristers.The stand-off over fees could affect other fraud trials due to take place. The FCA has said four defendants in a trial scheduled for September are currently unrepresented, and the Crown Prosecution Service has three fraud-related cases in which there are also no defence barristers.