PDA

View Full Version : Trial costs?


tony draper
9th Aug 2006, 16:38
Just been a comment on the Damelola Taylor case, the three trials have apparently cost a total of 16 million pounds,how in the name of all thats holy do trials cost this much? and who gets all the money?
:uhoh:

woolyalan
9th Aug 2006, 16:39
:eek: The judge, who, presumably is asleep through most of the proceedings!...




.... I want that job!

G-CPTN
9th Aug 2006, 17:26
The fees charged by the learned counsels for 'researching' and rehearsing the case and various possible scripts are hoomongous. First of all there has to solicitors (who talk to the clients - defendants or prosecution). Then the solicitors (when they have reviewed/ checked-out the mountain of evidence and compiled a possible case) apply to a court for a 'right to proceed' after which they brief the barristers (solicitors aren't qualified to speak to upper courts). Of course, although the barrister PRESENTS the case, they have several minions who collate the evidence and assemble the case so that the barrister can 'perform' (and yes, it's acting, so there's a full supporting cast). Expert witnesses (and forensic scientists) are required too (and SOMEONE has to pay them).

Court 'servants' (prison officers, transport, clerks, security officers, witness guides, jurors - they don't get paid, but they have to be fed and given accomodation . . . and so on, and so on . . . )

scruggs
9th Aug 2006, 17:26
The question is, who's paid for it!

colmac747
9th Aug 2006, 17:28
16 million? If that's true it's an utter disgrace and perhaps someone in the know can justify why.

It is, in my view, unjustifiable.

DaveO'Leary
9th Aug 2006, 17:30
We did, us tax payers, wtf they nailed the bast:mad: who killed this young boy.

Dave

green granite
9th Aug 2006, 17:43
About 10 years ago the figure for keeping a youth in "secure" council accommodation was 3,000 per week :confused::confused::confused:

G-CPTN
9th Aug 2006, 18:04
Whilst I haven't heard the evidence of this case (apart from what was originally reported in the media) I have my doubts as to the outcome of this case. "Reasonable doubt" would seem possible that the young victim happened to fall on a broken bottle (would there not have been fingerprints on the bottle?).
However, those suspected of killing Stephen Lawrence are GUILTY - you mark my words!
Watch this space . . .

tony draper
9th Aug 2006, 18:05
Puzzles me how these things are costed,I recal the 3000 quid to keep some snotnose in nick,that is ridiculous,you could put them up in a five star hotel and give them 500 quid a week pocket money for that, be no need for the little scumbags to involve themselves in crime then.
:suspect:

G-CPTN
9th Aug 2006, 18:09
They need screws. Any idea how much you have to pay for a good screw these days?

tilewood
9th Aug 2006, 18:22
Blair's Britain:-

Don't produce anything.
Don't enable anything.
Don't de-regulate anything.
Destroy free speech.
Destroy responsibility.
Destroy incentive.
Destroy respect for politics and the Establishment.
Ridicule history (British)
Ridicule tradition and culture (British and especially English)
Allow uncontrolled immigration, legal and illegal.
Encourage dependancy on the state.
Encourage criminality ( punish the victim rather than the criminal)

Hardly a comprehensive list,

But finallyLet's stuff the pockets of lawyers and judges, after all when one is about to lose one's job, a wife who is a lawyer and judge needs every fee she can get!! ;)

Unwell_Raptor
9th Aug 2006, 19:16
There's a well known Pruner who is a lawyer and a judge. He is sure to reply soon,
:)

tilewood
9th Aug 2006, 19:22
There's a well known Pruner who is a lawyer and a judge. He is sure to reply soon,
:)

I do hope so!! ;)

frostbite
9th Aug 2006, 19:55
Considering that dozens of children have been killed in various equally unpleasant ways during the past six years, why has this case been given so much publicity and so many resources devoted to it relative to many others?

colmac747
9th Aug 2006, 20:12
There's a well known Pruner who is a lawyer and a judge. He is sure to reply soon,
:)

Maybe. Perhaps even this particular Judge/Lawyer is as gobsmacked as the rest of us.

I would, in seriousness, be interested to hear any plausible explanation, [regardless of stature] as to why 16mil was spent.

Wedge
9th Aug 2006, 20:18
Criminal law is the worst paid of all the legal disciplines. Junior barristers earn barely enough to live on, while having to put in many, many hours of unpaid preparation in the course of doing one of the most important jobs in our society.

In this case, that £16 million does not all go to lawyers. It includes the thousands of hours of Police investigation/preparation, similar by the Crown in preparing the case (ok they are lawyers but on fixed salaries), and the huge administrative cost of running three long trials.

Yes, the Barristers and the defence solicitors will have been reasonably well paid for this, but why shouldn't they be? They are doing a very important and skilled job, and they earn no more, and usually less for criminal work, than others of similar skill and experience in any other field.

The judge's share will be a tiny proportion of that too. Maybe our learned friend can be a bit more specific with the figures.

They need screws. Any idea how much you have to pay for a good screw these days?

Screws get paid absolute peanuts. And it would be far more effective, and would have a much better impact on the crime rate, to offer prisoners help, such as psychiatric support and counselling (a very high proportion of our prison population has a mental health problem). But as a society, we'd rather just lock them up than pay to help them get better, because it's cheaper to pay for screws than shrinks. In the long term, of course, that approach has a far greater cost to society and the taxpayer, but the Politicians are so scared of 'soft on crime' tabloid headlines that they increasingly think up more and more ways to degrade our criminal justice system, which was once the greatest in the world.

colmac747
9th Aug 2006, 20:25
Junior barristers earn barely enough to live on

Figures?

.

Wedge
9th Aug 2006, 20:33
I'm looking for a breakdown of Barrister's pay which I came across a while ago but I can't find it. It's not uncommon for a newly qualified criminal barrister to earn less than £15K in their first year. That is barely enough to live on, especially in London. Note that thanks to this government's progressive attitude towards our criminal justice system, the pay rates have been frozen since 1997. This has caused great resentment, and caused the Bar to go on 'strike' last year. But because all Barristers are self-employed, and because once they have taken instructions they have to represent their client, it was not much of a success.

http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/3254/1/1/index.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4611239.stm

Yes, it's true that some lawyers earn astronomical money - Chancery QCs (who specialise in corporate/property/tax law can earn £2-3 million+ a year. But you don't get money like that on legal aid, much as people like to believe lawyers do.

colmac747
9th Aug 2006, 20:37
Thanks for that Wedge.

Interesting comments on the BBC link

SXB
9th Aug 2006, 21:08
Excellent post Wedge.

I especially agree with your comments on the prison population, Britain incarcerates people at a much higher rate than almost any other civilised country in the world. There are many people in prison who simply don't belong there, people convicted of minor crimes or those who have defaulted on financial penalties. Some of these people are not habitual or hardened criminals, in fact some of them are just like you and I but something has happened in their lives, like divorce for example, things spiral downwards, financial obligations are not met, proceedings begin, depression sets in, failure to appear, further obligations are not met, guy ends up in prison, loses his job, never sees his kids again.....

Before the "throw away the key" brigade say he got what he deserved just remember the penal systems priority is one of rehabilitation, especially in the case of non-violent offenders. Yes, the law has to be respected but throwing people in prison is not the answer.

The UK is a signatory of the Convention for the Prevention of Torture but is regularly critisised by that body for the condition of it's detention centres.

As for the original question I read the other day that it costs my office 219 for me to send a letter to someone in the Ukraine, I don't know how or who came up with this figure but I suspect the 16 million was calculated in a similar manner....

tony draper
9th Aug 2006, 21:18
I recall many years ago when the Asylum Seekers first appeared,or at least first began to appeared in number to cause concern ,on one of those morning chat shows, might have been Kilroy,load of Asylum Seekers accompanied by the Solicitor representing them putting their case to Kilroy and the audience, a comment was made about lawyers making money from other peoples misery as per,Solicitor pipes up,
"I only get payed 57 pounds a hour for representing these people ",
presumably hoping it would make the audience feel sorry for him, hee hee,large intake of breath from audience,he got some poisonous looks from the Asylum seekers,they had probably never earned 57 quid a month in their lives.
:)

arcniz
9th Aug 2006, 21:54
The graft always seems greener on the other side....

G-CPTN
9th Aug 2006, 21:57
I was interested to see the figure of £15,000 pa as being 'barely enough to live on'. Compare that with benefits and pensions of various sorts paid to unfortunates and elderly who are compelled to SURVIVE on a fraction of that figure.


http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2767810&postcount=8
Having heard that these two scumbags had significant previous, I've changed my mind. They're obviously guilty! Especially as they were under 24 hour curfew at the time of the incident. Over to the FSL, get the noose ready, I feel a hanging coming up . . .

DG101
9th Aug 2006, 22:03
"I only get payed 57 pounds a hour for representing these people "

But those 57 dingbats don't all go into the lawyer's piggy bank ...

Who, do you suppose, pays for the support staff, the office space, heat, light, telephone, computers ... etc.? I think you may find there ain't a lot left outta the 57 spondulicks, when all is accounted for

SXB
9th Aug 2006, 22:16
What a lawyer bills per hour and what he gets paid (or what he takes from the practice) are two entirely different things, an hourly rate represents an individuals value in any given situation.

The other day I had to sign a purchase order for a PeopleSoft consultant at 1500 per day, this being more than 200 per hour though I was told this is the market rate for such a guy. I met the guy yesterday and he was wearing flip flops, shorts and had a feather through his ear, he also propositioned my secretary and suggested that I should choose a different tailor. That said, if he solves my PeopleSoft problem then it will be money well spent. If he manages to take my secretary off my hands then it will be an added bonus.

Also, I'm not sure about the many references to asylum seekers on this board. Asylum seeker = Person who claims he is at risk of torture/death/persecution if he returns to his designated country of origin. The mark of a civislised society is one that investigates such claims, if you feel that these investigations are not being carried out in a competent or responsible manner then any complaints should be addressed to your local MP, the asylum seeker or the lawyer that represents them are entirely blameless and are only operating within the laws of whichever country they are claiming asylum. Personally, I'm really pleased that, by an accident of birth, I was born in a western European country, enjoy a good life, can ponce around in a BMW, have a hot wife, eat out in restaurants 3 times a week and generally have a good time. If I was born in some west African shithole I wouldn't be so lucky. It's always good to have some perspective.

Wedge
9th Aug 2006, 22:58
Compare that with benefits and pensions of various sorts paid to unfortunates and elderly who are compelled to SURVIVE on a fraction of that figure.

A completely false comparison. Remember that the Barrister has to pay (substantial) travel and subsistence costs out of the £15K. Note also that Barristers have to pay 40% of their income in Chambers fees although that is more or less factored into the estimate of £15pa for a new Barrister. If you live in London you will know that £15K is barely enough to get by on for a young professional. The comparison with a pensioner is simply not analogous.

The Criminal Bar simply is not paid commensurately with other professions requiring similar skill and expertise. It's not something you do for the money. I was once interested myself, but have been put off by being told not to by just about every Criminal barrister I have ever worked with.

G-CPTN
9th Aug 2006, 23:05
Fair comment, Wedge, although the ratio is still significant.


My local garage charges 54 per hour for labour, but of course that has to cover lighting and heating, 'ground rent' and rates, receptionists (and maybe two fitters being required to sort a particular job).

notmyC150v2
10th Aug 2006, 00:48
GCPTNI was interested to see the figure of 15,000 pa as being 'barely enough to live on'. Compare that with benefits and pensions of various sorts paid to unfortunates and elderly who are compelled to SURVIVE on a fraction of that figure.

But with respect to the pensioners and elderly they don't have to trick up in expensive suits, gowns, or wigs or face contempt procedings if they don't. They don't have to pay rent on their workspace in addition to their living space. They don't have to subscribe to various law reports or the bar association as a minimum. They don't have to continuously update their knowledge by participating in constant training sessions and lectures to maintain their registration at a cost each time.

I am not a fan of solicitors but the barristers are very highly skilled and on more than one occassion have meant the difference between freedom and subjugation for an entire country let alone the freedom of innocents wrongly accused.

Remember Barristers don't lie, cheat or steal. They leave that to the solicitors.

The good ones aren't nearly paid enough. And 15K for a junior is peanuts.

Blacksheep
10th Aug 2006, 06:55
We charge US$70 for the services of a TSE. He gets paid typically US$24 an hour.

The first is our total take and is called "labour rate." This includes all the costs associated with employing him plus a small profit. The second is his personal share of the take. When one considers all the very expensive capital assets used in aircraft maintenance its hard to reconcile the overheads of a law firm with those of an aircraft maintenance facility.

It's not uncommon for a newly qualified criminal barrister to earn less than 15K in their first year. My daughter earned much less than that as a newly qualified solicitor. Working 60 hours a week was considered normal. That went on for several years. A bit like doctors and their 'housemanship.' Nine years on she still makes only 38,000 a year - about the same hourly rate as one of our TSEs.

Lord knows how much the partners get, but they all drive Bentleys or big Benzes and live in country houses. There are plenty of con games out there and The Law is one of the biggest.

Flying Lawyer
10th Aug 2006, 16:11
how in the name of all thats holy do trials cost this much?They don't.
Where, in the name of all that’s holy, do journalists get these figures? They make them up.

For various reasons, enormous resources were devoted to the investigation of this particular case. Some people believe politicians getting involved (up to and including Tony Blair) was a factor and/or that the police were trying to avoid the criticism which followed the Stephen Lawrence investigation.

Costs would have covered many different individuals and bodies. eg Detectives of various ranks investigating the murder, uniform policemen in support/runner roles, scene investigators, several forensic scientists, medical experts, CPS lawyers, prosecuting counsel, defence solicitors, defence counsel, defence experts, judge’s salary, witness expenses, jurors daily allowance/travel costs, court running costs incl staff, court security, transport.

It was an unusual case (See ‘Timeline' here - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4791094.stm) , and I don’t doubt the total costs incurred over almost six years were very high, but I don’t believe the figure mentioned is remotely accurate.

Key events:
Nov 2000 – Damilola Taylor’s death.

1st Trial: Jan – April 2002
Four Defendants.
Two discharged during the trial when the evidence against them collapsed. Two found Not Guilty of all charges by the jury.
After intense criticism of the investigation, rewards for witnesses, and the decision to prosecute, the Metropolitan Police and CPS each set up inquiries into the handling of the case.

Nov 2003 - Police announce review of all the evidence in the case.
March 2004 – New forensic evidence discovered after re-examining the scientific material. The Home Office has set up an inquiry into what are said to be serious blunders by the Forensic Science Service.
Jan 2005 – After further investigation, 3 youths charged with murder. (Different youths from trial 1.)

2nd Trial: Jan – April 2006
One found Not Guilty of all charges.
Two found Not Guilty of murder but the jury couldn’t agree whether they were guilty of manslaughter, so they were prosecuted again.

3rd Trial: June – Aug 2006
Retrial of the two defendants. Both convicted of manslaughter.

Legal Costs

Judge
High Court Judge (£156,958 per annum). At least one previous trial also heard by a High Court Judge; I can’t remember who tried the other. (Senior Circuit Judge £127,061, Circuit Judge £117,680.)
To put those amounts in an aviation context, the highest is less than a senior BA long-haul Captain earns.
Counsel
In a complex murder case with a large volume of evidence, there would have been two barristers in each team. (Prosecution and 7 defendants in various trials.)
I obviously don't know the fees paid but I'd estimate:
Leading barrister - £400-450 per trial day.
Second barrister - £200-225 (half whatever the leader gets.)
The above rates for serious/complex cases.
Case preparation, pre-trial conferences, written work etc at hourly rate equivalent to about half the daily court rate. (Each hour has to be justified in detail in writing.)
NB: For actual earnings, deduct a third for overheads. (A rule of thumb, but never far out either way.)
If you can find a plumber in London for less than £200 per day, you’re very lucky and he’s almost certainly Polish.

The annual Legal Aid budget keeps going up, but that’s partly because more people are being prosecuted and partly because the government decided that everyone charged with a criminal offence should be given Legal Aid regardless of their financial circumstances. See - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/4579265.stm

Publicly funded fees are determined by the government (non-negotiable, take it or leave it), are considerably lower than all fees on the open market and a fraction of fees for Chancery and Commercial cases.
The Bar is a very competitive world – all practising barristers are self-employed (no partnerships permitted). Before anyone suggests it, no, there are no arrangements to keep fees at a particular level. If we have more work offered to us than we can do, our Clerks charge what the market is prepared to pay. Others will charge less in the hope of attracting more work.

From discussions with friends who are consultants/surgeons, barristers' earnings are broadly on a par with their medical equivalents - except for the criminal Bar. Medics who do NHS work and barristers who do all crime are both underpaid. In both professions, annual income depends upon the proportion of private work.

I used to do a high percentage of criminal cases, and still do some because I enjoy jury trials. Fees for aviation work are, like all civil work, significantly higher. If I had my time over, I probably wouldn’t do criminal work because it's so badly paid - and I advise any budding barrister to think very carefully before specialising in criminal cases.
(I do some aviation work for much lower fees, and a lot for nothing, but that’s my free choice which is very different.)

Solicitors
I don’t know the rates for publicly-funded work. I do know that an increasing number of firms are no longer prepared to do it.


FL

ExSimGuy
10th Aug 2006, 18:34
Well that means my share would be (same as yours) about 25 pence - to get some pretty nasty thugs off the streets. I would call that pretty cheap

(when I said "would be my share", that's because I'm a non-tax-paying expat, but I'll send Tony the 25p if he needs it) :E

Blacksheep
11th Aug 2006, 05:11
Leading barrister - £400-450 per trial day.
Second barrister - £200-225 (half whatever the leader gets.)
If I had my time over, I probably wouldn’t do criminal work because it's so badly paid - You have an interesting point of view on what constitutes low pay.

But of course you're a lawyer... :E

To be serious for a moment, you're quite right. Our daughter would have been better doing conveyancing and probate in the high street, but she finds criminals 'interesting.' As she says, "They're a completely different species from the rest of us."

tony draper
11th Aug 2006, 07:34
Well one said this TV prog was many moons ago could be hmmm fifteen or twenty years gone, 57 quid was a nicer lump of wedge then than now.
:rolleyes:

slim_slag
11th Aug 2006, 07:56
From discussions with friends who are consultants/surgeons, barristers' earnings are broadly on a par with their medical equivalents - except for the criminal Bar. Medics who do NHS work and barristers who do all crime are both underpaid. In both professions, annual income depends upon the proportion of private work.I had an old friend who I have been watching for some years come over this weekend. He has just been appointed Consultant Cardiologist, and of course the subject of pay in the NHS came up.

He didn't actually know how much he was paid by the NHS! "Somewhere between 70k and 75k - but it will go up every year!" He said he had far more money than he knew what to do with. I bet less than 5% of his patients could say the same.

I don't think he believes himself to be underpaid. When he earns the same amount doing one day a week private work I am sure he will consider his four days in the NHS to be underpaid like you do, and then I will start calling him greedy :)

tony draper
11th Aug 2006, 08:42
Then your friend is pretty unique Mr Slim,can't think of anybody I know who does not concider themselves underpayed.
:rolleyes:
Including some one would concider very well payed.

Go Smoke
11th Aug 2006, 08:56
My daughter earned much less than that as a newly qualified solicitor. Working 60 hours a week was considered normal. That went on for several years. A bit like doctors and their 'housemanship.' Nine years on she still makes only 38,000 a year - about the same hourly rate as one of our TSEs.

If she works hard and is good enough then in time she may get offered a partnership

Lord knows how much the partners get, but they all drive Bentleys or big Benzes and live in country houses. There are plenty of con games out there and The Law is one of the biggest.

Family member of mine is a partner and group manager in a large international law firm and earns about 400k p.a.
She is extremely good at her job and well respected.
She works harder than any other person I know and works almost inhuman hours.
It has taken years to get to this point in her career and many of those years were not well paid.
It has however taken it's toll - she is just about burnt out and ready to quit - also no time for children etc. Tough choices.

Blacksheep
11th Aug 2006, 15:08
I bet less than 5% of his patients could say the same.I can't speak too highly of my own cardiologist. He's a millionaire and as far as I'm concerned he deserves it. The same goes for my surgeon. No lawyer could ever do for me what those guys did.

The guy who I have the most affection for though, is the unsung junior doctor who dealt with me as soon as I arrived at A & E. I don't know his name and I don't know where he is now, but I hope he's a consultant with a country house and a Bentley. :ok:

Unwell_Raptor
11th Aug 2006, 15:36
I was once asked to approve the costs for a proposed 15-day appeal (don't ask why, it's technical) and the QC concerned wanted 5000 brief fee and 3000 per day refreshers, plus half that for his junior. Instructing solicitors wanted about 125000, plus the same again for travel and disbursements, since the case had a foreign dimension. Plus VAT.
The total they asked for was north of a third of a million, and we refused the request, granting 100,000 all-in. On the next appearance I happened to be sitting and there was a different QC and junior there, the first one not wishing to proceed for that kind of money.

Wedge
11th Aug 2006, 15:48
SSSSHHHHHH!!!!! U_R!!!

The plan was going so well ;)

Choxolate
11th Aug 2006, 15:59
My daughter earned much less than that as a newly qualified solicitor. Working 60 hours a week was considered normal. That went on for several years. A bit like doctors and their 'housemanship.' Nine years on she still makes only 38,000 a year - about the same hourly rate as one of our TSEs.

However doctors actually add something to the overall quality of human life.

Blacksheep
12th Aug 2006, 05:55
However doctors actually add something to the overall quality of human life.So do successful prosecutors... ;)

As to my opinion of doctors, read my previous post.

airship
12th Aug 2006, 06:23
I can't speak too highly of my own cardiologist. He's a millionaire and as far as I'm concerned he deserves it. The same goes for my surgeon. No lawyer could ever do for me what those guys did. I get the impression that ex. Wal-mart boss Tom Coughlin (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4785715.stm) would probably agree with you: US District Judge Robert Dawson declined to sentence him to jail after doctors had testified his health was too poor for him to go to prison. And quite obviously, he wasn't relying on a public defender or legal aid...one justice for the rich and another for the poor? :}

FL, I couldn't help but remark: Case preparation, pre-trial conferences, written work etc at hourly rate equivalent to about half the daily court rate. (Each hour has to be justified in detail in writing.)
Is the time spent writing in detail the justification for the initial time spent billable and would one have to subsequently spend even more billable time in justifying that ad infinitum...?! ;)