I was recently telephoned by Bridgend Magistrates’ Court to be told that a client of mine had been arrested on warrant in respect of breaching a suspended sentence order. I arrived at court and saw my client in the cells. He informed me he was working; I completed the CDS14 and 15. As he did not have any documentary evidence on him in relation to his wages, I also completed a CDS17.

This was then submitted to the court office prior to my client being called before the magistrates.

My client admitted the breach of the order and the magistrates imposed an immediate term of imprisonment on him for doing so. I was not too surprised by their decision and, fortunately, neither was my client. However, a couple of days later I received a refusal of legal aid on the basis that, at the time of the submission of the application, my client was earning too much money to justify the grant of legal aid. The interests of justice test was passed.

I was furious and immediately got hold of the legal aid clerk; she was very helpful and indicated that she felt the way around this would be to complete another CDS15 and show there had been a change of circumstances - namely that my client had received a prison sentence and was no longer working. This I did and submitted the new CDS15 - only to be told by the same clerk that on ringing the Legal Services Commission to check that she could now assess the application for legal aid, she was informed that as the case had now been completed, no reassessment could be done.

My client of course has lost his job as a result of the prison sentence. What chance do I now have of persuading him to pay me a fee for the work I did on his behalf? If anyone knows a way around this I would be most grateful to have their input.

It is outrageous that solicitors should be left to represent a client not knowing whether legal aid will be granted, then told, when it is refused, that it is too late to do anything about it because the client has been sentenced and the case has finished.

This is not the sort of situation in which a client comes into the office and one has time to do a rough calculation as to whether legal aid will be granted. I was called from the court, told there was a client in the cells and asked if I could see him over the lunch break, as the magistrates would deal with him first thing in the afternoon. I am afraid to say I had no chance to consider whether he would be above or below the financial limits. Perhaps I should simply say to the court that I refuse to represent my client until I am told whether or not he is granted legal aid. If he is refused legal aid, perhaps I should tell him that unless he can pay me there and then, he will be on his own. Heaven help us if we are expected to start means testing in the police station.

I wonder if any of my colleagues who do criminal work have thought about how we can bring it to the government’s attention that not to pay us for committals is simply unfair? Stronger words come to mind but are not printable. To deal with this matter - and this obviously depends on the clients not being in custody - I have considered not applying for legal aid until they are committed to the Crown court and, if necessary, simply acting as a McKenzie friend.

That will require the court on the day of the committal to have to consider all the evidence before the client can be committed. This will, of course, slow down the whole court process, without putting our clients at a disadvantage. Again I would welcome the views of my fellow practitioners.

LinkedIn logo Join our LinkedIn Legal Aid sub-group

Jonathan David, QualitySolicitors David & Snape, Bridgen