References: Unreported, 10 July 2001
Coram: Judge Wakerley QC
Ratio Judge Wakerley QC expressed his concern at the numbers of applications for transfer of representation in the Crown Court. The court has a duty to bear in mind the cost to the taxpayer and that, as a result, good reason must be established before a representation order was transferred. He emphasised that the court will insist on strict compliance with the provisions of Regulation 16 which meant that the grounds of the application and full particulars need to be specified by the existing representative.
He observed: ‘This court will insist on strict compliance with the provisions of Regulation 16 . . The grounds of the application and full particulars need to be specified by the existing representatives. Next, the substantial compelling reason under subparagraph 2(4), if relied on, needs to be specified so that I can identify it. It will not generally be sufficient to allege a lack of care or competence of existing representatives . . only in extremely rare cases, and where full particulars are given in the application, will a general ground of loss of confidence or incompetence be entertained. It must further be pointed out that it will not be sufficient simply to say that there is a breakdown in the relationship between solicitor and client. Many breakdowns are imagined rather than real or as a result of proper advice’
Statutes: Criminal Defence Service (General)(No.2) Regulations 2001 16
This case is cited by:
- Approved – Regina -v- Ulcay QBD (Bailii, [2007] EWCA Crim 2379, Times 07-Nov-07, [2008] 1 WLR 1209, [2008] 1 All ER 547)
The defendant appealed against his conviction, saying that his counsel and solicitors had withdrawn at the last moment on the grounds of professional embarassment, the defendant having altered his instructions. New lawyers were unwilling to assist . . - Approved – Clive Rees Associates, Solicitors, Regina (on The Application of) -v- Swansea Magistrates Court and Another Admn (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 3155 (Admin))
The claimant solicitors challenged a decision of the respondents to transfer legal aid orders for the representation of clients to a second frm of solicitors.
Held: The court considered the various cases, finding three decisions unlawful and . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 20-May-16
Ref: 449711