CONTROVERSIAL plans to introduce lower legal aid fees for solicitors acting in appeals have been rejected by Holyrood's Justice Committee.
The proposals for lawyers acting in the Sheriff Appeal Court had prompted threats of a widespread boycott of the new court, which is being set up in a bid to alleviate pressure on the High Court where summary appeals are currently dealt with.
As part of the plans, the Scottish Government proposes a fee structure where solicitors receive £27.40 for a half hour appearance, when it would currently attract a payment of £171.10 for those involved.
Legal bodies claimed the proposals were "insufficient" and "not commercially viable" and, in an unusual step, the Justice Committee yesterday voted against them by five votes to three.
The decision was welcomed by the Law Society of Scotland who claimed the move could have a significant impact on access to justice.
Society president Christine McLintock said: "The proposed rates of legal aid funding for the Sheriff Appeal Court would mean it was uneconomical for solicitors to carry out this type of work.
"This would have an enormous impact on access to justice and, had the regulations been passed, we believe they would severely disadvantage people appealing either a conviction against them or an unfair sentence, with the danger being that increasing numbers of unrepresented appellants attempt to reverse a judicial decision on their own."
However despite the rejection by the committee, the Scottish Government - who are now "considering their options" - could still attempt to get the regulations passed by opening them up to a full chamber vote.
Bar associations in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Falkirk have all threatened to boycott the court if the regulations are passed - a move which would throw up further problems for the Government even if they manage to get the proposals passed.
Ross Yuill, president of the Glasgow Bar Association, said: "This was a brave and unexpected decision by the Justice Committee and we are grateful to them for for taking on board our response and our concerns about these regulations."
He argued that solicitors do not want a boycott, but feel like they have to "draw a line in the sand" on this issue given that the fees are at a rate introduced in 1992.
Edinburgh Bar Association president Stephen Mannifield said the boycott threat still stands if the regulations are pushed through by another means, adding: "The position is very uncertain at the moment and given that the new court's due to start next week, there's not a lot of time."
The proposals also throw up issues for solicitor advocates as they are currently paid at a higher rate for appearing in the High Court in such appeals, whereas once they are being heard at sheriff court level, they will be paid the same as regular solicitors.
Mr Yuill added that it will also create an "inequality of arms" as solicitors - who have not had to argue in complex appeal cases before - will have to face senior prosecutors.
The Law Society said it is committed to engaging with the Scottish Government and Scottish Legal Aid Board "as a matter of urgency".
The new court is due to begin hearing cases on September 22.
The Scottish Government said it is "currently considering options", however refused to reveal what those options were.
Paul Wheelhouse, minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, said: "Throughout this process we have been committed to providing access to justice for all those appearing in the new court and ensuring appropriate remuneration for legal professionals for their work.
"This remains our aim and we believe the regulations, combined with assurances around sanction for counsel, deliver equality of arms and access to high quality representation."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel