Asked by: Lord Vinson (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what level of priority the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) has assigned to its review of the conviction of former trader Tom Hayes, on charges of manipulating the Libor rate; what plans they have to increase the grant-in-aid funding to the CCRC; and what plans they have, if any, to change the law relating to Libor.
Answered by Lord Wolfson of Tredegar - Shadow Attorney General
As an independent arm’s length body, it would be inappropriate for the Government to comment on the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC)’s handling of an individual case. However, the CCRC Casework Policy on Priority of Cases, available on its website, assigns cases which have been under review for more than two years as ‘higher priority’.
Budget allocations for 2021/22 for Arm’s Length Bodies such as the CCRC are yet to be decided. However, the decision will take into account – in consultation with the CCRC – the amount of funding it feels it needs to achieve its strategic goals for the year.
There has been substantial reform to the regulation of benchmarks since the 2012 LIBOR manipulation scandal. In 2013 the administration of LIBOR become a regulated activity, overseen by the FCA, and the government created a new criminal offence of knowingly or deliberately making false or misleading statements in relation to benchmarks. In 2016, the EU Benchmarks Regulation was introduced, regulating the administration, calculation and use of benchmarks.
The Financial Services Bill, currently before Parliament, amends the Benchmarks Regulation, to provide the Financial Conduct Authority with new and enhanced powers to oversee the orderly wind-down of critical benchmarks, such as LIBOR. The Bill also increases the maximum sentence for all criminal market abuse offences from 7 to 10 years, and this includes the offence of making misleading statements in relation to benchmarks.
Asked by: Lord Vinson (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, in the light of the report from the Competition and Markets Authority Legal services market study published in December 2016, what plans they have, if any, to ask the Competition and Markets Authority to suggest to law firms that they should publish their hourly rates online.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie - Shadow Minister (Justice)
The Government has no plans to collect data on the uniformity of hourly rates charged throughout the legal profession, or to ask the Competition and Markets Authority to suggest to law firms that they should publish their hourly rates online.
The legal profession in England and Wales is independent of Government and the Legal Services Board is the oversight regulator. The regulatory bodies are taking forward measures to achieve greater pricing transparency in the sector. The Legal Services Board is monitoring progress on this.
Asked by: Lord Vinson (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Keen of Elie on 28 March (HL6178), given that litigation costs are a minor proportion of legal fees, what plans they have, if any, to begin collecting data on the uniformity of hourly rates charged throughout the legal profession.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie - Shadow Minister (Justice)
The Government has no plans to collect data on the uniformity of hourly rates charged throughout the legal profession, or to ask the Competition and Markets Authority to suggest to law firms that they should publish their hourly rates online.
The legal profession in England and Wales is independent of Government and the Legal Services Board is the oversight regulator. The regulatory bodies are taking forward measures to achieve greater pricing transparency in the sector. The Legal Services Board is monitoring progress on this.
Asked by: Lord Vinson (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of (1) the cost of litigation; (2) the extent to which this is related to fees charged by lawyers; and (3) the existence of a genuine competitive market to ensure that such fees are set at a level that is fair and reasonable.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie - Shadow Minister (Justice)
The Government does not hold data on the legal fees charged by lawyers to their clients, which are private matters. The Government does, however, continue to have concerns about the costs of civil litigation that may be recovered from a losing party. These recoverable costs, if not fixed, are agreed between the parties or determined by the court at the end of the case. We have taken action on these recoverable costs in recent years, largely implementing the recommendations of Sir Rupert Jackson’s ‘Review of Civil Litigation Costs: Final Report’, published in January 2010, including in Part 2 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, in April 2013.
Sir Rupert’s ‘Supplemental Report: Fixed Recoverable Costs’, published in July 2017 recommended extending fixing the recoverable costs in all civil cases up to £25,000 damages, and in less complex cases up to £100,000 damages. The Government is considering the report and will set out the way forward in due course.
Asked by: Lord Vinson (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Faulks on 24 June (WA 144), what was the overall cost for the last three years of legal aid claims in respect of false imprisonment; and into which categories they record such costs as falling.
Answered by Lord Faulks
The table below shows the total amounts claimed against closed false imprisonment matters from the 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2013/14 financial years. These matters cover domestic false imprisonment, and both legal and illegal immigration false imprisonment matters.
The claim values represent the total amounts paid against cases closing in the respective period, and as such, some of the expenditure against these cases may have been incurred in earlier periods. The costs are recorded as falling in the category Actions Against the Police.
Financial Year | Claim Value |
2011-12 | £191,556.33 |
2012-13 | £134,999.82 |
2013-14 | £517,980.45 |
The increase in claim value in 2013/14 compared to previous years is largely due to one case which started in 2002, for which a final bill was submitted in January 2014. This case, known as Austin and Saxby, was a test case on behalf of a much larger group of individuals relating to protests on May Day 2002. They claimed that they had been unlawfully subjected to the procedure known as kettling by the Metropolitan Police. The case went to the House of Lords (Supreme Court) where they lost and the law was eventually clarified.
Asked by: Lord Vinson (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the cost to public funds, in each of the last five years, of compensation payments to illegal immigrants who had been unlawfully detained beyond the statutory period; and what was the legal aid cost of the lawyers undertaking those compensation claims.
Answered by Lord Faulks
1 April 2008 we have reported on compensation cases and disclosed information on individual cases where the costs exceeded £250,000. We do not report the individual details on cases below this threshold, or prior to this date.
Information relating to compensation, ex-gratia and adverse legal costs payments is available and can be found within the Losses and Special Payments disclosure in the UKBA Annual Report and Accounts. These are available on the Home Office Website via the attached link.
www.gov.uk/government/publications?departments%5B%5D=uk-border-agency
Legal Aid Agency data does not distinguish between false imprisonment claims made by illegal immigrants and those made by other individuals.