Office of Legal Complaints Commissioner

The Legal Services Complaints Commissioner's main powers are in the Access to Justice Act 1999 at sections 51 and 52, and Schedule 3 to the Act. The Act as originally passed refers to the Lord Chancellor as the relevant minister. The minister is now the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. [ Helping Consumers]

1. Letter to the Law Society Declaring Plans as inadequate

2. Te text of letters to the Law Society of 6 February 2008 setting out the targets I requested should be included in its 2008/9 complaint-handling Plan.

Letter 1

Letter 2

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Alternative dispute resolution, usually referred to as ADR, is the collective term for the ways that parties can settle civil disputes, with the help of an independent third party and without the need for a formal court hearing.

This section describes how alternative dispute resolution fits into the department for constitutional affairs proportionate dispute resolution strategy and what we are doing to promote it.

Guide From Department of Constitutional Affairs.

Kept A Secret by the Justice Ministry

Kept a secret by the Justice Ministry until now: how the judges ran the Crown Court. Times 19th March 08

An unprecedented report that exposes an inefficient and judge-centred culture in the Crown Court has been obtained by The Times after a three-year battle with officials determined to suppress it.

The report, obtained under . the Freedom of Information Act, highlights inefficiencies arising from the prevailing culture of the time that was based on ensuring that judges were not kept waiting.

It also discloses inflexible sitting patterns; sometimes resulting from judges' unwillingness to sit in an unpopular Crown Court (courts are not named but could include Northampton, Woolwich or Birmingham) and inconsistency of approach, with some judges failing actively to manage cases.· .

Officials at the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) have repeatedly refused to release the draft report, arguing that this would "undermine relations with the judiciary" and resisted its disclosure at every, stage of the appeals process.


But Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, has now ruled that the MoJ, the department charged with. running Whitehall compliance on freedom of information, has itself breached the Act. In an embarrassing finding for the MoJ, he says that officials incorrectly withheld the information, as any potential prejudice that would arise was not sufficient to warrant an exemption .from disclosure .

The inquiry into the listing and .management of cases was carried out by three government inspectorates (those on the Crown Prosecution Service, the magistrates’ courts service and on the police) in 2003 - a time of heightened sensitivity in relations between judges and after the proposed abolition of the office of Lord· Chancellor.

As a result, the report remained under wraps receiving only a passing. mention in a subsequent annual magistrates’ courts’ service inspectorate report . Why? Judges would have been concerned - . particularly at the time of the research - that any inquiry into listening trials, which is jealously guarded as a judicial function, was another encroachment on their independence. Publishing a report on the inquiry findings would not have then been welcome, particularly as the report calls for a review of listing practice in the Crown Court, although it does accept . that this is a complex task because of the high proportion of not-guilty pleas (66 percent of defendants at that time). What the inspectors found was that listing practice varied "considerably from court to court" and the differences arose not just from varying workloads but from factors such as the views of the resident judge on how listings should be done. “Until recently there was a listing culture aimed at achieving timeless targets and keeping judges busy in court.

But while timeliness will remain important, it can “no longer be the prime focus for listing", the report says. Instead, there is now "an over-arching target to reduce ineffective trials” and more emphasis on improving victim and witness satisfaction.

The inspectors also urge "greater flexibility" over the sitting day. “Time estimates for trials are often inaccurate and greater attention should be paid to the accuracy of estimates when setting cases down for trial.


Then there was the problem of moving judges. The inspectors heard that a newly appointed judge might agree to sit at an unpopular court on condition that he or she will be moved to a “more congenial” court after a couple of years. Some candidates who applied to be judges “refuse appointment until they can have the itinerary they wish.” Nor could judges be compelled to change their itinerary to meet court needs, they say.


A further difficulty was the shortage of judges qualified to take certain kinds of case, . such as child abuse, rape or murder, for which special training is needed; and of recorders prepared to sit for longer than a week -presumably because they did not want to spare more time from their practices. As .a result, trials could be delayed or courts left empty .


It says that the role of the resident judge in running listing is key, but that role is not defined and there is no "competence framework" to assess the judge given this job, nor is it clear to what extent the resident judge can manage fellow judges. Yet the ·inspectors accept that running the courts efficiently is made all the harder because of the "long-standing problem" of prisoners not being delivered to court on time. . Other failings include a . "culture of late preparation at the Bar" and the high percentage of trials that fail to go ahead because witnesses do not attend or defendants plead guilty at the last minute.


So what do the inspectors conclude? The report calls for a complete review of listing practice in the Crown Court. The report's findings are now largely historic. In releasing it, the MoJ emphasises that much of it has been overtaken by a series of reforms to make the Crown Court more efficient and meet any criticisms. But as an object lesson in the delicate constitutional relationship between judges and the executive, it remains as relevant now as then.


FRANCES GIBB GRANIA LANGDON-DOWN

Public Law Project Leaflets on Public Law

The Public Law Project has an excellent website.

Leaflets

1. How can public law help me? Download here.

2. What is Judicial Review? Download here.

3. Short Guide to Grounds for Judicial Review. Download here.

4. Remedies in Judicial Review. Download here.

5. A Guide to Making a Formal Complaint. Download here.

6. Complaints Procedure for particular public bodies. Download here.

7. Making a Complaint to the Ombudsman.

Taking your case to the European Court of Human Rights ECHR

This is from Liberty Guide to Human Rights.

Taking a case to the European Court of Human Rights

Even though the HRA has now come into force in the UK it is still possible to make an application to the ECHR.

There are three key requirements that you must meet:

1. You must be a victim of a violation of one or more of the articles of the Convention. Generally, this means you must be directly affected by a breach of the Convention. In some cases it will be enough to show you are likely to be affected by a breach or that you belong to a group of people, some of whom are likely to be affected. For example, gay men were permitted to challenge laws that criminalized gay sex even though it was unlikely that the individual applicants would ever be prosecuted because the laws were rarely enforced.

2. Before you make an application to the ECHR you must pursue any proceedings that you could take in the UK that are capable of providing you with an adequate remedy for the breach of your Convention rights. Now that the HRA is in force this will generally mean that you will have to take proceedings in the UK under the HRA. This may not be necessary, however, where it is clear that the best you could hope to achieve from taking proceedings under the HRA is a declaration of incompatibility.

3. You must make your application to the ECHR within six months of the conclusion of any court proceedings that you have taken in the UK that could have provided you with a remedy or, if there were no proceedings that it was reasonable to expect you to take, within six months of the event which gives rise to your application. When you make an application to the ECHR you will be asked to complete one of the ECHR’s application forms. However, it is not necessary to fill out one of these forms to meet the six month rule. All you need to do is to get a letter to the court within the six months setting out: 1. Your details (name, address and nationality). 2. The country against which you are making your application. 3. The facts that have given rise to your application. 4. The article or articles of the Convention that you say have been breached.

You should send your letter to:

The Registrar European Court of Human Rights Council of Europe

F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex

France

Fax: 00 33 3 88 41 27 30

When it has received your letter the ECHR will send you one of its application forms to complete. If there is not enough space on the form you can set out your case in a longer document which you attach to the form. It is important that you submit your completed application form within any deadline set by the ECHR or, if no deadline is set, within a few weeks of receiving it. If you do not submit the form speedily you run the risk that the ECHR will decide that you have not met the six month deadline. If you cannot meet any deadline that is set you should contact the ECHR and try to agree an extended deadline.

Once the ECHR has acknowledged receipt of your application form it may be some time (months if not years) before you hear anything further. At this stage the ECHR may rule your application inadmissible. The ECHR will not give reasons and there is no right of appeal. If your application is ruled inadmissible you will not be able to proceed with it. If it is not ruled inadmissible at this stage, your application will be allocated to one of the ECHR’s four sections. A panel of seven judges from that section will deal with the case. This panel will always include the judge appointed by the United Kingdom. Very significant cases may be dealt with by the ECHR’s Grand Chamber.

These cases are considered by a panel of seventeen judges. A case could be transferred to the Grand Chamber at any stage in the proceedings. Your application will also be communicated to the Government at this stage, that is, the Government will be informed that you have made an application and will be invited to respond. You will be given an opportunity to respond to the Government’s observations and there may be further exchanges of written representations. The ECHR will then decide whether your application is admissible. It can rule your application inadmissible if you have failed to meet one of the three requirements set out above or if the ECHR considers that it is ‘manifestly ill-founded’, in other words, that is not arguable. If the ECHR finds your application inadmissible at this stage it will give reasons, but there is no right of appeal. If the ECHR finds your application admissible it will then go on to decide whether there has been a breach of the Convention.

The ECHR usually refers to this as considering the merits of the application. At this point you have the right to put in a claim for compensation. The ECHR calls this ‘just satisfaction’. It should include a claim for legal expenses if you have incurred any. Your claim for just satisfaction should be sent to the ECHR within two months of the ECHR finding your application admissible. Both sides may make further representations before the ECHR decides on the merits of the application. When the ECHR has made its decision on the merits of your application, you will be notified of the date on which its judgment will be made public. The judgment will be published on the ECHR’s website on that day.

If the ECHR finds that there has been a breach of your rights it may award you compensation although it does not always do so on the basis that its finding that there has been a breach of your rights is enough. Once a section of the ECHR has made a final decision on the merits of an application, either party, the Government or the Applicant, can ask to have the application referred to the Grand Chamber. This is the only form of appeal that the ECHR’s rules allow for. The Grand Chamber only rarely agrees to a referral. There is no appeal from a final decision made by the Grand Chamber.

Hearings

The ECHR deals with most cases without holding a hearing; it reaches its decisions on the basis of written representations made by the parties. When the ECHR does decide to hold a hearing this will usually take place before the ECHR has decided on the admissibility of the application, although it may also hold a hearing after an application has been found admissible if it has not already held one. Legal representationAlthough you can make an application to the ECHR yourself, it would be wise to get a lawyer experienced in ECHR proceedings to represent you. Most cases are not communicated to the Government (i.e. they are ruled inadmissible at an early stage) and having a lawyer present your arguments for you may help you get over this hurdle. If the ECHR decides to hold a hearing after it has found your application admissible, the ECHR rules require you to be represented by a lawyer at that hearing unless the ECHR allows otherwise.

Legal Aid

The ECHR has a system of legal aid although the payments which a lawyer receives under the scheme are very low. You can apply for legal aid once your application has been communicated to the Government. It is particularly useful to have legal aid if the ECHR holds a hearing on your case, as legal aid will pay the cost of your and your lawyer’s trip to Strasbourg. Eligibility for legal aid will depend on the Legal Services Commission accepting that you would be eligible for legal aid in this country. If you are not eligible for legal aid, your lawyer may agree to represent you under a conditional fee agreement, that is, on the basis that they will only get paid if you win your case and get your legal costs paid by the Government. However, as very few applications to the ECHR are successful, your lawyer may be reluctant to take this risk. If you lose your case there is no possibility of you being ordered to pay the Government’s legal costs.

Taking Your case to the European Court of Human Rights

This is an excellent section written by UK Mens Movement.

Information on taking your case to ECHR, Strasbourg

Introduction

The European Convention on Human Rights has been agreed by the United Kingdom Government, and is upheld by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

But there will be many members, and others, whose rights may have been violated by the Government. We refer primarily, and give examples from, matrimonial and family law, although there will be other areas in which men are affected.

Information is available online at European Court of Human Rights website. They have a good internal search engine to assist with finding cases similar to your own, identified by topic or by Article number.

Hardcopies of the Convention, and other documents, including case decisions etc., may be obtained from :

European Court of Human Rights
Council of Europe
670756 Strasbourg Cedex
FRANCE

tel : 00 33 88 41 20 18
fax : 00 33 88 41 27 92
00 33 88 41 27 30

You should ask for a copy of the following :

the Convention
the Rules of Court
application forms (3 copies are useful : 1 for your draft, 2 for your submission, and 3 a copy for your file) with accompanying notes
booklet on making an application.

Ask for at least one copy, preferably a few for other member's use, and for your own legal adviser whether that is a solicitor/barrister or not.

The Convention consists of a number of Articles, with additional Articles in the supplementary Protocols. The UK has ratified the Convention and Protocol No. 1 only. Listed below are those Articles which you will find of most interest.

You have to show that you have exhausted your domestic remedies. This may be taken to imply you should take your case up through the courts to the House of Lords, however if you can make argument that this would not address the violation, then you don't need to do this. Also, an on-going situation, for which no UK laws are available to remedy the violation, would also imply that you don't need to go up to the House of Lords.

You are asked to apply within 6 months of a decision by a domestic court - but note that in cases for which no UK laws are available, and in on-going situations, the 6 month limit does not apply.
The Court will ask you to write to them first, with brief information about your case. If they think that it is not obviously ill-founded, and that you are within the time limit, they can send you an Application form, which is usually supplemented with other documents. You will find a word processor invaluable, in not necessary, for this.

Don't be put off by the secretaries i.e. the administrative staff handling your case - they will try to put you off, and in fact have gone to underhand lengths to obstruct applications. You want a Judge to see your application.

If you get past the 'rapporteaur' stage, you can claim legal aid from Strasbourg. You won't get it in the UK, as the UK is your adversary. The Rules of Court (#91 - #96) give the regulations for this and explain that you are to complete a declaration on your income and assets, but no limits are given, simply that it is available if "the applicant has insufficient means to meet all or part of the costs entailed".

If the Court initially finds in your favour, it has the option to ask each party (yourself and the UK Government), to attempt to reach a 'friendly settlement'. This would imply that some negotiations in the UK will take place, although this may be in the form of a court hearing to look into the previous handling of the case. If this occurs, remember that you are essentially suing the UK government for human rights abuses, and that any settlement must be friendly to yourself not the government.

Most of the proceedings are done by post. They may culminate in a hearing in Strasbourg. However it is possible to complete a case without a hearing at all, and in fact Norman Scarth won a case without having to attend a hearing. Legal aid can cover the costs of attending a hearing.
The Court has 'secretaries' who are equivalent to the 'clerks of the court' in the UK. These secretaries have a brief to prevent cases reaching the judges. When they tell you that your case 'seems to have little prospect of success' or use other such statement, ignore this, and ask for it to be put forward and registered as a formal case with a case number. Be very firm with them. Norman Scarth had letters from the secretaries telling him that his case had little chance. He later won his case without even a hearing.

Please note that all domestic remedies have to be exhausted eg the Human Rights Act 1998.

Scarth v UK Application no. 33745/96

Known for his flaboyant personality and his braveheart, Norman Scarth took the UK to the European Courts of Human Rights some years ago and won.

Norman Scarth had a hearing in a civil contractual case in which the public and press were excluded, without good reason for this exclusion. The UK government accepted the violation of Article 6, as it should have done. It is more than regretable that the government attempts to defend so many applications.

This case will limit the number of occasions in which judges may attempt to prevent the public knowing what is going on in our courts.

Download Judgment here.

Download Word File of Judgment

Mclibel Litigants

Infamous LIPs Helen Steel and Dave Morris in the McLibel Trial.

Wikipaedia entry.

McLibel Pair Win just to show that determination wins the day.

Interesting Video. Click on the Mclibel link here.

Brennan v Natwest

This BBC article is an interesting one concerning a LIP against Natwest.

"At times Judge Peter Simpson took a critical view of the fact that Mr Brennan was representing himself, a so-called "litigant in person".

"I do not accept you are an ordinary litigant in person "Judge Peter Simpson
He upbraided Mr Brennan for failing to submit full and proper documentation, and accused him of trying to plead his case by instalments.
"I do not accept you are an ordinary litigant in person," the judge said sternly, referring to the fact that Mr Brennan was a recently qualified lawyer - albeit specialising in another area entirely, planning law. Speaking outside the court after the third day of argument, Mr Brennan conceded he had had a hard time before the judge.
"It's fair to say it was an uphill struggle," he said.

Litigant In Person Survey

"Many people choose to represent themselves in court as a Litigant In Person (LIP). Either party has a right to do this in a family court (you don’t need a solicitor if you don’t want one).
You also have the right to ask fro the assistance of a friend (called a McKenzie friend).
If you represented yourself, how did you get on?"

Download Litigant In Person Survey

UK Men's Aid on McKenzie Friend

Men's Aid lists as follows

"The Court of Appeal recently made a landmark decision which will be welcomed by all who act in person - namely that being accompanied by a friend in court is an absolute right, and is not at the discretion of the court. It was also ruled that denial of this right is unfair and strikes at the very root of justice. These rulings vindicate our stance on the matter, and we are grateful to the National Council for Civil Liberties (now Liberty) for taking up the issues involved.The term 'McKenzie friend' relates to the case of McKenzie v McKenzie - a divorce action where the judge had mistakenly debarred the "friend" of a litigant. The matter went to the Court of Appeal and is reported in [1970] 3 WLR 472, upholding the ruling of Lord Tenterden in Collier v Hicks [7 June 1831] that:

"Any person, whether he be a professional man or not, may attend as a friend of either party, may take notes, may quietly make suggestions, may give advice ..."

The Vexing Issue - Spelling Trouble Ahead

This is an interesting newsletter by Henmans.

"Many litigants may be forgiven for their approach to what is unfamiliar territory. Claims may involve substantial issues of lawor fact, particularly those brought against professionals. However, without a focused and rational approach, both lawyers and the courts alike can quickly lose patience. There is, though, a unique class of litigants, whose behaviour can be defined as vexatious and who are a genuine burden on the court's time and resources"

Download the newsletter from here.

Guidance from the President's Office in Mckenzie Friends

Guidance from the President’s Office- McKenzie Friends

1. Where proceedings are held in open court, it is clear from the principles set
out in Court of Appeal decisions1 that a litigant who is not legally represented
has the right to have reasonable assistance from a layperson, sometimes
called a McKenzie Friend (“MF”).

2. A litigant in person wishing to have the help of a MF should be allowed to do
so unless the judge is satisfied that fairness and the interests of justice do not
so require. The presumption in favour of permitting a MF is a strong one.2

3. A litigant in person should inform the court at the outset of a hearing that he
intends to exercise his right to a MF. He should also indicate who his MF will
be.

4. The court may refuse to allow a MF to act or continue to act in that capacity
where the judge forms the view that the assistance he has given, or may give,
impedes the efficient administration of justice. However, the court should also
consider whether a firm and unequivocal warning to the litigant and/or MF
might suffice in the first instance.

5. If a judge decides in the exercise of his or her discretion to refuse to allow a
MF to assist the litigant in person he should give the litigant reasons for his
refusal. The litigant may appeal that refusal, but the MF has no standing to
appeal such a refusal.

6. What a McKenzie Friend May Do6
• Provide moral support for the litigant
• Take notes
• Help with case papers
• Quietly give advice on:
o points of law or procedure;
o issues that the litigant may wish to raise in court;
o questions the litigant may wish to ask witnesses.

1 McKenzie v McKenzie [1970] 3 All ER 1034, R v Leicester City Justices ex parte Barrow & ors
[1991] 3 All ER 935, R v Bow County Court, ex parte Pelling [1999] 4 All ER 751. See also Collier vHicks (1831) 2 B & Ad 669.
2 Re H (Minors)(Chambers Proceedings: McKenzie Friend) [1997] 3 FCR 618 (CA),
3 Ex Parte Barrow
4 Ex parte Barrow.
5 Ex parte Pelling.What a McKenzie Friend May Not Do

• A MF has no right to act on behalf of a litigant in person. It is the right of thelitigant to use the assistance of a MF if he so requires.

• A MF is not entitled to address the court, nor examine any witnesses. If he
does so he becomes an advocate and requires the grant of a right of
audience.

• A MF may not attend a closed court unless the litigant has received
permission from the court for the MF to do so at the start of a hearing.

• A MF may not act as the agent of the litigant in relation to the proceedings nor
manage the litigant’s case outside of court, for example, by signing court
documents.

Rights of Audience

• Sections 27 & 28 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 govern
exhaustively rights of audience and the right to conduct litigation. They
provide the court with a discretionary power to grant lay individuals such
rights.

• A court may grant an unqualified person a right of audience in exceptional
circumstances only and only after careful consideration.10 The litigant must
apply at the outset of a hearing if he wishes the MF to be granted a right of
audience or the right to conduct the litigation.

Personal Support Unit & Citizens’ Advice Bureau

• Litigants in person should also be aware of the services provided by local
Personal Support Units and Citizens’ Advice Bureaux. The PSU at the Royal
Courts of Justice in London can be contacted on 020 7947 7701, by email at
cbps@bello.co.uk or at the enquiry desk. The CAB at the Royal Courts of
Justice in London can be contacted on 020 7947 6880 or at the enquiry desk.
6 McKenzie v McKenzie
7 Ex parte Barrow, ex parte Pelling.
8 See “Rights of Audience” below.
9 Re G (A Minor) (Chambers Hearing: Assistance) (1991) Note [1999] 1 WLR 1828, Re H
(Minors)(Chambers Proceedings: McKenzie Friend) [1997] 3 FCR 618 (CA), ex parte Pelling.
10 D v S (Rights of Audience) [1997] 1 F.L.R. 724 (CA), Milne v Kennedy & Others (11 February 1999)
(TLR) (CA). Paragon Finance PLC v Noueiri (Practice Note) [2001] 1 WLR 2357 (CA).
11 Clarkson v Gilbert [2000] 2 FLR 839 (CA).

Download PDF

In Parliament

Vera Baird (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs) Hansard source

"The award of costs is a matter for the judge in the light of the circumstances of a particular case. Under the current rules of court, litigants in person can be awarded costs for the work done in connection with the case of £9.25 per hour. If, however he can prove a higher financial loss for that work he can claim that higher figure subject to an absolute cap on the amount recoverable of two thirds of the amount that would have been allowed if the litigant were legally represented. He can also claim his disbursements. The flexibility of the current system ensures that litigants are fairly compensated for the work carried out. The Government have no plans to review the current rates"

COSTS - LITIGANTS IN PERSON

Note: This file does not form part of the LCD or CS sites. The files on those sites are the only official versions of the CPRs and related material. Please also note that the cross-references are not claimed to be comprehensive.

SECTION 22

22.1

Introduction

(a) A person is a "litigant in person" during any stage of proceedings in court in which he or she is not represented by a solicitor or firm of solicitors. For this purpose the term "litigant in person" may include a company or other corporation, a barrister, a solicitor, a solicitor's employee or other authorised litigator who is acting for himself. However, the term does not include a solicitor who, instead of acting for himself, is represented in proceedings by his firm or by himself in his firm's name (CPD 52.5).

(b) Litigants in person have rights of audience in all detailed assessment proceedings. As to their entitlement to have a MacKenzie Friend present, see Section 1 para 1.2, above.
(c) The costs recoverable by parties in respect of periods when they are or were litigants in person are governed by the Litigants in Person ( Costs and Expenses) Act 1975 and by CPR 48.6. This section of the Guide is intend to help parties understand the position. Reference must be made to the Act and the CPR if there is any doubt.
(d) The staff of the SCCO are not permitted to give rulings or legal advice on the Act or on the CPR nor to enter into any lengthy or technical advice as to the meaning of this Guide nor to recommend any individual solicitors or costs draftsmen who may be willing to give advice or assistance.
(e) Advice and assistance may be available from the Citizen's Advice Bureau in the Royal Courts of Justice. Further information as to this is given in Section 1 para 1.7, above.
(f) A litigant in person who is unable to obtain copies of any prescribed form needed may ask the Costs Office for help (see Section 1 paras 1.5, 1.8 and 1.9). Most of the "N" forms mentioned in this Guide can be supplied free of charge.

22.2 Costs Recoverable by Litigants in Person

The costs of litigants in person can be divided into four categories:
(i) out of pocket expenses (such as court fees, fares travelling to court, witness fees, etc) if they relate to work or disbursements which would have been done or made by a solicitor had a solicitor acted for the litigant in person.
(ii) Payments made to obtain expert assistance in connection with assessing the claim for costs. For this purpose a person is an expert if he is a barrister, solicitor, Fellow of the Institute of Legal Executives, Fellow of the Association of Law Costs Draftsmen, or a law costs draftsman who is a member of the Academy of Experts or the Expert Witness Institute. However, a litigant in person cannot recover any costs in respect of a person or entity whose services he retains to provide general assistance in litigation unless that person or entity has a right to conduct litigation within the meaning of s 28 Courts and Legal Services Act 1990Acts (see Agassi v HM Inspector of Taxes) [2005] EWCA Civ 1507. (Such a right is conferred by the Law Society, the Bar Council, the Institute of Legal Executives or an appropriate professional body.)
(iii) Costs for work done by the litigant in person which caused him or her pecuniary loss (for example, a litigant in person who is employed losing a day's pay through attending a court hearing or through going on a long journey to interview an essential witness).
(iv) Costs for work done by a litigant in person which did not cause him or her any pecuniary loss (eg, the examples just given if the work was done during leisure time).

22.3
Procedure on Detailed Assessment

(a) The procedure by which a litigant in person seeks to obtain costs from another party is as set out in Sections 3 to 17 of this Guide (briefly, service of a bill plus notice of commencement and certain other documents, obtaining a default costs certificate or, if points of dispute are served, serving a reply and/or filing a request for a detailed assessment hearing).

(b) Where a litigant in person wishes to prove that he has suffered financial loss he should produce to the court any written evidence he relies on to support that claim and must serve a copy of that evidence on the paying party at the same time as serving the notice of commencement.

22.4

Calculation of Charges for Time Spent by a Litigant in Person Preparing the Case

(a)
In order to determine charges for time spent, the costs officer or Costs Judge must decide four questions:

(i) What items of work were done and what time was actually spent on those items?
(ii) In respect of each item, how long was it reasonable for the litigant in person to spend? The time allowed may be less than the time actually spent by the litigant in person and more than the time that would have been spent by a solicitor, had a solicitor been employed to undertake that item.
(iii) What hourly rate or other rate is it reasonable to apply in respect of time reasonably spent by the litigant in person? Unless financial loss can be shown the rate allowed is £9.25 per hour under CPD Section 52.4 (£25 per hour in the Employment Appeal Tribunal).
(iv) If all the items of work for which costs are recoverable had been undertaken by a solicitor, what would a solicitor's reasonable charges have been for doing such work?
(b) The evidence to be served in support of a claim to prove financial loss should include what work a litigant carried out during the case, what employment the litigant may have taken up but for the case and what job offers were received and/or refused on account of the case (see Mainwaring v Goldtech Investments Ltd) [1997] 1 Costs LR 143 at page 156).
(c) There is an overall limit on charges for time spent preparing the case which can never be exceeded. The cost officer or Costs Judge cannot allow more than two thirds of the sum which a solicitor could reasonably have charged for doing the work (CPR Section 46(2)).
22.5 Calculation of Disbursements

(a) The litigant in person will be allowed all his reasonable disbursements (such as court fees, out of pocket expenses) in full if the costs officer or Costs Judge decides all of the following questions in his or her favour:

(i) were these disbursements actually incurred?
(ii) If so, at the time they were incurred, did it then appear necessary or at least reasonable to incur them?
(iii) Are the sums claimed for each disbursement reasonable in amount?
(b) If, in respect of any disbursement the answers to questions (i) or (ii) is no, the amount claimed for that disbursement will be wholly disallowed.
(c) If, in respect of any disbursement, the answers to questions (i) and (ii) are yes but the answer to question (iii) is no, the costs officer or Costs Judge may allow a reduced amount for that disbursement.

Press Release from the Royal Courts of Justice Advice Bureau

The Art of Self Defence is written by a Guardian Journalist. It is an interesting piece covering Heather Mill's efforts as Litigant In Person and the general view on representation. It is worth a read.

Damning Leeds Magistrates Court Report Uncovers Lies, Lies and Lies

If anyone has experienced any court in the UK, documents may go missing and LIPs are plagued with many problems. Leeds Magistrate Court is facing the media's scrutiny. The full article can be read in the Yorkshire Evening Post.

" A damning report into Leeds magistrates courts has painted a picture of years of chaos and mismanagement which has rocked the city's criminal justice system.

A total of 555 defendants had warrants for their arrest withdrawn by legal advisers – or clerks – as part of an agreement drawn up by the courts, Crown Prosecution Service and police.Some of the withdrawn warrants related to cases of indecent assault, actual bodily harm, assault, indecent exposure, wounding and robbery.Court officials were also "guessing" outcomes of court cases and creating "artificial" court registers after a failure to record the outcome of thousands of cases.The revelations has led to a review into whether records on offenders held by the Criminal Records Bureau have been "compromised" and a desperate attempt to track down those most serious cases which should have been placed on the Police National Computer.

Continued here.

Download the entire report from there.

Royal Courts of Justice Advice Bureau

This is based at the Royal Courts of Justice. The RCJ Advice Bureau is run by lawyers in conjunction with the Citizens Advice Bureau and is independent of the court. They provide free, confidential, impartial legal and procedural advice and assistance to everyone regardless of their race, gender, sexuality or disability.

There are two branches

1. Royal Courts of Justice - Monday - Friday 10am and 2pm - 4.30pm.
2. Principle Registry of the Family Division Monday - Friday 10am - 1.00pm and 2pm - 4.30pm

All details are on their website http://www.rcjadvice.org.uk/
James Banks
Bureau Director
RCJ Advice Bureau
Principal Registry of the Family Division
4th Floor, First Avenue House
42-49 High Holborn
London WC1V 6NP

Advice line 08451203715
Vouce Mail 02079476880

CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES

The Civil Procedure Rules are available at the Department For Constitutional Affairs. Essentially, they are the rules by which all court staff ( judges, solicitors and barristers work by). It is essentially a rule book. More information is found on Wikipaedia.

The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) govern the way in which court cases are conducted in England and Wales. They were introduced in April 1999 with the aim of enabling courts in England and Wales to deal with cases justly and streamlining the civil justice process by resolving as many cases as possible without resorting to court proceedings. The Civil Procedure Rules replace the Rules of the Supreme Court 1965 and County Court Rules 1981.

Others are

1. Criminal Procedure Rules

2. Family Procedure Rules

The Blue Book is also available for purchase from the online TSO bookshop.

DCA REPORT ON LITIGANTS IN PERSON

Litigants in person
Unrepresented litigants in first instance proceedings

Executive Summary

This report explores detailed quantitative and qualitative data on unrepresented litigants from four courts in first instance civil and family cases, excluding small claims cases. It provides a detailed picture of the prevalence and nature of unrepresented litigants and the impact of non-representation on themselves, the courts and their opponents. The main findings are:

1. Unrepresented parties in cases were common. It was usually defendants and not claimants/applicants who were unrepresented. Obsessive/difficult litigants were a very small minority of unrepresented litigants generally, but posed considerable problems for judges and court staff.

2. A large part of the reason for non-representation, especially in civil cases, was in fact non-participation. Some unrepresented litigants were in fact partially represented. Although there was evidence that significant numbers of unrepresented litigants had some advice on, or assistance with, their case, the evidence suggested this help was ad hoc.

3. A small but significant proportion of cases involved at least one active party who was unrepresented throughout the life of their case. Cases where both parties were unrepresented were rare. There were variations in non-representation by types of case and litigant. Some unrepresented litigants indicated vulnerability.

4. Although sometimes less serious and less heavily contested than cases involved in represented litigants, what was at stake for litigants was nevertheless significant. Parties go unrepresented for a range of reasons including choice and the lack of free or affordable representation.

5. There is little evidence of an explosion in the numbers of litigants in person, though the situation is unclear in the family courts.

6. Participation by unrepresented litigants is not the same as active defence. Levels of activity suggested cases involving unrepresented litigants may have involved more court-based activity than those cases where all parties were represented. Within cases involving unrepresented parties, participation by unrepresented litigants was generally of a lower intensity than participation by represented parties.

7. The bulk of participation took place via the court office not the court room.

8. Unrepresented litigants participated at a lower intensity but made more mistakes. Problems faced by unrepresented litigants demonstrated struggles with substantive law and procedure. There was other evidence of prejudice to their interests.

9. There was at best only modest evidence that cases involving unrepresented litigants took longer, though cases with unrepresented parties were less likely to be settled.

10. Some courts and local advice providers may be more welcoming to, or encouraging of, unrepresented litigants than others. Courts were not confident signposters of unrepresented litigants to alternative sources of help.

11. Judges recognised that unrepresented litigants posed a challenge to the ‘passive arbiter’ model of judging and responded to that challenge with varying degrees of intervention. Court staff recognised unrepresented litigants’ needs but were unsure of what help was permissible because of the way the ‘no advice’ rule was managed.

12. Court staff and judges perceived that improvements could be made in the way that unrepresented litigants were handled.