The Committal order by which the Appellant was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment was quashed after the Court of Appeal heard submissions that the Appellant should have been represented or at least have consented not to be represented.
The lack of representation in the circumstances of this case infringed Article 6 of the ECHR. The case is of interest to a broad range of practitioners who work in the County Court. In his comprehensive analysis of relevant LASPO provisions Lord Justice McCombe concludes that public funding is available subject to means to all those facing committal proceedings in the County Court, but not via the Judge via application to the Director of the Legal Aid Agency.
Committal proceedings should not hereafter proceed without either the grant of a representation order or an actual or de facto waiver of the entitlement to representation.
Please click here to view Ian Bridge’s profile.
