Pricing Structures

We have developed a number of pricing structures to suit clients on most income levels. To some clients minimising the level of their legal costs is as important as achieving your objective with an acquittal or damage limitation on penalty. The Finest Bronze Package enables you to receive the very best legal representation but at a sensible price.

We also have other more prestigious packages to suit clients who wish to invest more funds in their representation which include more "frills" and service options.

No matter which option you select, we can assure you that you will receive outstanding service, advice from lawyers who are experts in motoring law involved in your case and you will be made to feel as though you are our only client.
 

Fixed Fees (Guilty Pleas and Applications for Return of Licence Early Following a Ban)

We tend to offer fixed fees for guilty plea cases because for cases where we defend a prosecution, we are only able to have a rough idea of what work and court attendances may be involved in a case at the outset. With cases where you intend to plead guilty, we can say with far more certainty that the case will almost always be concluded with one appearance in court* and it is unlikely we will need to obtain any expert evidence. *Where there is a risk of a prison sentence, and the court adjourns the case for pre-sentence reports, we will charge a refresher fee for a second court appearance.

We are also able to offer fixed fees for applications to have your licence returned early following a ban.
 

Fees in all other cases

Our fees are usually made up of some or all of the following:

We charge an hourly rate for our time;
VAT (currently 20%);
Experts’ fees; and
Advocate fees.

Packages for Defended Prosecutions

We offer 3 defence packages with different benefits available:
 

	Finest Bronze Package
	Elite Silver Package
	Premium Gold Package

No matter which service package you select for your case, you will always receive the same level of dedication and expert input from your defence team. However, the  higher the level of package you select, the more benefits and service advantages you will receive from us.

 

Benefits	Services
	Gold	Silver	Bronze
Personal untimed meeting with Miss Justice
Untimed meeting with GMS team case handler
Private telephone access to Miss Justice
Round the clock telephone access to case handler and team
Guarantee of Miss Justice working on your case
Press relations service
Guaranteed choice of trial advocate
Pre-trial conference with trial advocate
Family VIP membership
VIP membership
Chauffeur service to and from court on day of trial
Court Appearance Training
Monthly Video Conference Call
Minimum Weekly update
Lawpack kit
Priority Billing if acquitted
Scanning of all correspondence
Duplicate Trial Folder
Trial/final hearing liaison team

Defendants’ Costs Orders

If you are acquitted or a case against you is discontinued then it is highly likely the court will grant a defendant’s costs order. This will result in a significant proportion of the legal costs that you pay to us being reimbursed to you after the conclusion of your case. The level of reimbursement will depend on the package you select. For most standard package cases, reimbursement will be in the region of 70-100% of the costs you paid for your representation.

History Of Fight To Maintain Access To Justice

Senior Partner, Jeanette Miller, aka Miss Justice, was instrumental in changing the shape of the criminal justice system when in 2009 she launched a campaign against the government’s plans to limit an acquitted defendant’s costs recovery.

In September 2009, outraged by the impending implementation of motoring defence cost capping regulations, Miss Miller launched an e-petition on the no.10 website. By the time the petition closed, it had attracted almost 22,000 signatures:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CostsRecovery

Despite this strong objection, The Ministry Of Justice proceeded to with the implementation of these unjust rules designed to cap the costs of a successfully acquitted defendant. The petition attracted the support from many high profile figures including 26 QC’s and the Criminal Bar Association have fully endorsed the sentiments behind the petition. The petition was also backed by many legal and motoring organizations. Following the petition, the Law Society took up the helm and launched judicial review proceedings against the government in January 2010.

The judgment - handed down on June 15 2010, by Lord Justice Elias and Mr Justice Keith - has ruled unlawful an attempt by the previous Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw, to cap the costs paid to people acquitted in criminal cases. The court said:

“The new regulations involved a decisive departure from past principles. They jettison the notion that a defendant ought not to have to pay towards the cost of defending himself against what might in some cases be wholly false accusations, provided he incurs no greater expenditure than is reasonable and proper to secure his defence. Any change in that principle is one of some constitutional moment. It means that a defendant falsely accused by the state will have to pay from his own pocket to establish his innocence. Whatever the merits of that principle, I would be surprised if Parliament had intended that it could properly be achieved by sub-delegated legislation which is not even the subject of Parliamentary scrutiny.”

Jeanette had not only launched a campaign before the illegal regulations were implemented but she was also heavily involved in providing evidence to assist the Law Society’s judicial review application as acknowledged in their email below.

From: Emily Di Cesare
Sent: 15 June 2010 14:39
To: Jeanette Miller; Sophie Kemp
Subject: RE:


Dear Jeanette


Please see attached the judgment handed down today. It is a very positive. Thank you for your invaluable assistance throughout this matter.


Kind regards

Emily

Emily Di Cesare
Solicitor and Legal Adviser – Legal Services Department
The Law Society, 113 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1PL
Commenting on the judgment, Law Society President Robert Heslett said: “This is a great victory for the Law Society on behalf of innocent people who have been prosecuted by the state. The High Court’s ruling strikes down the previous Lord Chancellor’s plans, which would have meant that many people who were ineligible for legal aid and who were acquitted could have been seriously out of pocket because of the limits on the costs that they could recover. “This was entirely at odds with the accepted principles of justice. It wasquite wrong for the previous Government to devise such a scheme and I am delighted that the court has struck it down.

Law Society Chief Executive Desmond Hudson added: “Opposition to this policy was a key plank of the Law Society's Manifesto Delivering Justice in the run up to the general election and opposed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats when in Opposition. We are glad that this policy has been halted in its tracks. We recognise that there are severe financial constraints on the Ministry of Justice budget but we would urge the Government not to seek to overturn this judgment.

“Unnecessary and inappropriate prosecutions should be avoided so that innocent people are not forced to go through the trauma and cost of trial process in the first place. Government should look at the system as a whole and we are keen to work with them on this.”

The case concerned the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, section 16 which gives the courts the power to award costs to successful defendants of such an amount “as the court considers to be reasonably sufficient to compensate the defendant for any expenses which he has properly incurred in the proceedings.”

Courts are either able to make summary assessments or they can refer cases to be taxed by the National Taxing Team.  

Until October 2009, regulations made under the Act stated that the test to be applied in determining awards of costs was to be the test set out in section 16. Accordingly what was a “reasonable” hourly rate for a solicitors firm was determined by reference to the rates charged by comparable firms with similar expertise and in a similar locality.  Equally, in relation to the level of counsel instructed, the proper question was the reasonableness of the instruction.

This scheme came under scrutiny as a result of budget overruns and the impact of a small number of very high cost cases. It decided therefore to take advantage of a power contained in the Act to set rates or scales for payments of costs out of central funds and to introduce a scheme which limited recoverable costs to legal aid rates. 

The Government estimated that its new scheme would save £20 million each year. The cost of this was to be borne by individuals, an average of £16,200 per case in the Crown Court, representing the difference between the average costs of a privately paid criminal case (£19,000) and the average cost of a legally aided case (£2800). 

The point at issue in the litigation was relatively simple: can the Lord Chancellor in setting rates or scales decide what is “reasonable” to allow the defendant, even if as a consequence the amount that will be recovered falls well short of the amount the defendant actually incurred?  

In his judgment given 15 June 2010, Lord Justice Elias made it clear that the statute does not allow the Lord Chancellor to decide what is reasonable. In setting out a scheme of rates and scales, he has to respect the statutory purpose set out in the Prosecution of Offences Act. The Act was intended to provide reasonable compensation for successful defendants. By implementing rates and scales which did not compensate defendants the Lord Chancellor had acted unlawfully.