Legal aid U-turn 'will penalise the innocent'

Amy Winehouse arriving at court on the second day of her assault trial in 2009. She was acquitted and ?68,000 she incurred in defence costs was refunded to her. Photograph: Neil Mockford/Getty Images

Innocent people will be forced to pay thousands of pounds for their own defence lawyers after a controversial coalition U-turn on legal aid.

The move, which lawyers' organisations claim puts a price on justice, comes at a time of mounting concern over cutbacks proposed by the Ministry of Justice. Clause 52 in the legal aid and sentencing bill removes the right of defendants to have the "reasonable" costs of hiring their own lawyer reimbursed if they are found innocent.

The plan was first drawn up by the previous Labour government, but was scrapped in the face of Tory opposition. The attorney general, Dominic Grieve, the solicitor general, Edward Garnier, and justice ministers Jonathan Djanogly and Crispin Blunt all opposed the plan, and signed an early day motion against it in October 2009. But their decision now to back a similar proposal has alarmed justice groups. which have branded it a U-turn.

"We are deeply disappointed that this government is trying to bring this back," said Robert Khan, head of law reform at the Law Society. "It is wrong in principle that the acquitted person should then have to pay the costs of their defence for the temerity of proving their own innocence."

Ministers expect to save ?40m under the proposals. More than one million defendants who appeared before magistrates courts in 2008 did not receive legal aid, meaning the estimated tens of thousands subsequently found innocent would have lost out financially.

The government claims the move will put an end to the taxpayer writing out large cheques people such as Nick Freeman, the lawyer known as "Mr Loophole", who regularly gets clients off speeding offences. Millionaire celebrities who are found not guilty would also no longer receive reimbursements. England midfielder Steven Gerrard received ?311,000 in legal aid after he was acquitted of affray, while singer Amy Winehouse had ?68,000 returned after being acquitted of hitting a fan.

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: "We need to strike a fair balance between refunding costs to people who are found not guilty and protecting the taxpayer from ending up paying a bill for costs which are either overly expensive or not necessary."

But the Law Society claims the new measure will affect far more people than motorists and millionaires.

Currently, section 16 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 gives courts the power to award costs that are "reasonably sufficient to compensate the defendant for any expenses which he has properly incurred in the proceedings".

The last government wanted to introduce a scheme that limited these costs to legal aid rates, which would mean those who hired their own lawyers would be able to reclaim only around a quarter of their estimated costs.

Opposing the plan in a speech to parliament last year, the Tory MP Henry Bellingham, a barrister, argued that it was "fundamentally unfair and wrong" because it breached "a key principle of 20th-century criminal justice – that if a member of the public who is charged with a criminal offence seeks private representation in court and is subsequently acquitted, his or her reasonable costs will be met from central funds".

But clause 52 will now provide the lord chancellor with a power to cap the amounts courts in England and Wales can award at legal aid rates.

Sound Off for Justice, which opposes the move, claims that because legal aid rates are "very low" many defendants will experience a significant shortfall. In a typical medium-sized case in the crown court, for example, the estimated loss for someone found innocent who has hired their own lawyer will be up to ?20,000. In more complicated cases, it will be far greater.

Clause 52 threatens to be a divisive issue for the government, putting it at odds with the judiciary and many MPs. The Law Society was successful in seeking a judicial review of the previous government's plans. Explaining its decision, the high court warned the plan meant "that a defendant falsely accused by the state will have to pay from his own pocket to establish his innocence".

Following the ruling, the ministry decided that it would not appeal against the judgment, but the coalition's decision to reintroduce the measure is likely to trigger fierce debate in parliament.

The move is part of wide-ranging initiatives to curb the Ministry of Justice's budget. Lawyers have previously raised concerns that under clause 12 of the bill the government could grant itself powers that would see the abolition of the universal right to a solicitor on arrest. Those arrested would be subject to means testing, a development that has alarmed legal campaigners who warn it removes a cornerstone of justice.

The government has also signalled that it plans to expand the use of legal advice telephone lines to replace solicitors who dispense advice face to face. The government claims that CDS Direct, the helpline that provides advice to detainees at police stations, offers "a proven high-quality cost-effective service". But the use of third party companies has raised concerns among some lawyers who question whether they offer value for money.

View the original article here

Campaigners seek arrest of former CIA legal chief over Pakistan drone attacks

The CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. Photograph: Danita Delimont/Getty Images/Gallo Images

Campaigners against US drone strikes in Pakistan are calling for the CIA's former legal chief to be arrested and charged with murder for approving attacks that killed hundreds of people.

Amid growing concern around the world over the use of drones, lawyers and relatives of some of those killed are seeking an international arrest warrant for John Rizzo, until recently acting general counsel for the American intelligence agency.

Opponents of drones say the unmanned aircraft are responsible for the deaths of up to 2,500 Pakistanis in 260 attacks since 2004. US officials say the vast majority of those killed are "militants". Earlier this week 48 people were killed in two strikes on tribal regions of Pakistan. The American definition of "militant" has been disputed by relatives and campaigners.

The attempt to seek an international arrest warrant for Rizzo is being led by the British human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith of the campaign group Reprieve, and lawyers in Pakistan. The lawyers are also building cases against other individuals, including drone operators interviewed or photographed during organised press facilities.

A first information report, the first step in seeking a prosecution of Rizzo in Pakistan, will be formally lodged early next week at a police station in the capital, Islamabad, on behalf of relatives of two people killed in drone strikes in 2009. The report will also allege Rizzo should be charged with conspiracy to murder a large number of Pakistani citizens.

Now retired, Rizzo, 63, is being pursued after admitting in an interview with the magazine Newsweek that since 2004 he had approved one drone attack order a month on targets in Pakistan, even though the US is not at war with the country.

Rizzo, who was by his own admission "up to my eyeballs" in approving CIA use of "enhanced interrogation techniques", said in the interview that the CIA operated "a hit list". He also asked: "How many law professors have signed off on a death warrant?"

Rizzo has also admitted being present while civilian operators conducted drone strikes from their terminals at the CIA headquarters in Virginia.

Although US government lawyers have tried to argue that drone strikes are conducted on a "solid legal basis", some believe the civilians who operate the drones could be classified as "unlawful combatants".

US drone strikes were first launched on Pakistan by George Bush and have been accelerated by Barack Obama.

Much of the intelligence for the attacks is supplied either by the Pakistani military or the ISI, the country's controversial intelligence agency.

Both have blocked journalists and human rights investigators from visiting the tribal areas targeted, preventing independent verification of the numbers killed and their status.

While Stafford Smith of Reprieve estimates around 2,500 civilian deaths, others say the number is closer to 1,000. US sources deny large numbers of civilian deaths and say only a few dozen "non-combatants" have been killed.

While killing civilians in military operations is not illegal under international law unless it is proved to be deliberate, disproportionate or reckless, Stafford Smith believes the nature of the US drone campaign puts it on a different legal footing.

"The US has to follow the laws of war," he said. "The issue here is that this is not a war. There is zero chance, given the current political situation in Pakistan, that we will not get a warrant for Rizzo. The question is what happens next. We can try for extradition and the US will refuse.

"Interpol, I believe, will have to issue a warrant because there is no question that it is a legitimate complaint."

The warrant will be sought on the basis of two test cases. The first centres on an incident on 7 September 2009 when a drone strike hit a compound during Ramadan, brought by a man named Sadaullah who lost both his legs and three relatives in the attack.

The second complaint was brought by Kareem Khan over a strike on 31 December 2009 in the village of Machi Khel in North Waziristan which killed his son and brother.

Both men allege Rizzo was involved in authorising the attack. The CIA refused to comment on the allegations.

The pursuit of Rizzo will further damage US-Pakistani relations, which are already under severe strain following years of drone attacks and the killing of Osama bin Laden in May. Last week the US suspended $800m (?495m) in military aid to Pakistan.

The US launch its first drone strike against a target in Pakistan in 2004, the only one for that year. Last year there were 118 attacks after Obama expanded their use in 2009, while 2011 has so far seen 42.

The use of drones has been sharply criticised both by Pakistani officials as well as international investigators including the UN's special rapporteur Philip Alston who demanded in late 2009 that the US demonstrate that it was not simply running a programme with no accountability that is killing innocent people.

View the original article here