Bureaucracy Gone Mad – The LSC and Form LAC1

On 3rd October, 2011, a number of changes were introduced by The Criminal Defence Service (Funding)(Amendment) Order of 2011. the purpose of these changes were two-fold; to reduce the criminal legal aid budget and to discourage solicitors from advising their clients to elect trial at the Crown Court.

The latter reason had a number of benefits for the Ministry of Justice, The latest figures (taken from  here) show that the average administrative cost per case in the Crown Court  is over £2,800 – considerably more than the equivalent cost in the magistrates court. To this figure must then be added the costs to the legal aid fund and it goes without saying that the majority of the criminal share of that fund is spent on Crown Court cases.

It cannot be argued that, whatever the merits, a defendant electing trial at the Crown Court had financial benefits for the defendant’s legal representatives in legal aid cases. A higher magistrates’ court fixed fee would be payable, together with the litigator’s fee at the Crown Court.

Accordingly, for cases where legal aid was granted on or after 3^rd October 2011, a fixed fee was introduced for both litigators and advocates in cases where a magistrates’ court had accepted jurisdiction but the defendant had elected trial by jury but no trial at the Crown Court was commenced.  The fees were set at such a low level that keeping the case in the magistrates’ court became more profitable for solicitors.

To reinforce this, the Funding Order abolished payment for work done in the magistrates’ court prior to, and including, the formal committal for trial.

This left a problem; How would the Legal Services Commission (the LSC) know, when assessing claims for litigator and advocates fees in the Crown Court, how the case had reached the Crown Court? Had the defendant elected, or had the court declined jurisdiction?

Easy!  Amend the respective claim forms to include a section asking (by tick box) whether jurisdiction was declined by the magistrates or whether the defendant elected trial by jury.  However, the LSC were dealing with lawyers and, obviously, lawyers cannot be trusted to tell the truth. Accordingly, the amended form asks for supporting evidence of the mode of trial decision in the magistrates’ court to be provided. No supporting evidence? Substantially reduced fee will be paid!

This gave more work for the “form designing” department at the LSC to do.  They came up with the LAC1

This form is to be completed by the defence giving details of the defendant’s name, offence faced, and the name of the magistrates’ court and then signed by the Court Legal Adviser or Court Associate to confirm that the defendant had been “directed” to the Crown Court by the magistrates’. The form also requires that the defence also give further vital information to the LSC; the number of the court room the hearing took place in, and also whether the hearing was in the morning or afternoon.  One cannot but hazard a guess that such questions are merely there to fill up space to justify an A4 size form.

However, it is not now uncommon for a defendant to be unrepresented at the committal stage because these proceedings are no longer remunerated under a legal aid order. No solicitor was involved to get a LAC1 signed.  How will the supporting evidence be provided to the LSC to ensure the full litigator and advocate fee is paid for the Crown Court work?

The simple and sensible answer would be for the solicitor to send to the court a completed LAC1 for signature and return.  This is where the most ridiculous bureaucracy kicks in. I have been astonished by many of the decisions of the LSC in the past but this one beggars belief, especially in the current financial climate.

It will thus come as no surprise that sending a LAC1 to the court is not allowed!  The legal advisers have been told that they cannot backdate these forms. Why?  They do not know. They are just not allowed to do so!

All is not lost, however.  The LSC will accept an extract from the court register confirming that jurisdiction was declined by the magistrates as “supporting evidence”. 

So, the solicitor writes to the court not enclosing a LAC1 but requesting an extract of the register. This extract will not be from the date of the committal but from the date jurisdiction was declined. The extract may not tell you in which court room and in what session the decision was made but this, apparently, is no longer important.

Extracts from the court register are not free.  How much they cost depends to which court you are making the application. This week we have been quoted £5 by one court and an exorbitant £60 by another. No cheque from us, no extract.  Do not fear, however, because.... THE LSC WILL REIMBURSE YOU!

Let’s get this straight then. The no-cost and easy option of sending the prescribed form to the court for signature is forbidden

Instead, the LSC (who are funded by the Ministry of Justice) will reimburse up to £60 to the solicitor who has sent a payment to Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service (who are ... yes ... funded by the Ministry of Justice)

You couldn’t make it up!