The Association of Motor Offence Lawyers (AMOL) was founded in May 2007 by Senior and Managing Partner, Jeanette Miller aka Miss Justice.

To explain why it is so important for a client to instruct an expert in motor offence law it is helpful to use an analogy of using a GP to perform brain surgery. You simply would not even dream of such a thing. Many general criminal lawyers are capable of dealing with a very straight forward factual motoring defence but the vast majority of general criminal lawyers do not have the expertise to employ tactics and knowledge we have gained through years of experience.

The organisation’s aims are to ensure that members of the public have a clear way of recognising true expertise in the highly specialised field of motor offence defence. The organisation was set up in response to a growing number of instances where expertise has been claimed by lawyers who simply do not possess it. This has led to many clients being incorrectly advised and in our view, wasting their money aswell as possibly being made a victim of a miscarriage of justice!

Prior to the launch of AMOL there was no way of telling if a solicitor was a true expert. Flashy websites can be created by anyone with a knowledge of basic criminal law and this makes it difficult to select the right firm to serve your interests. Now, there is a very easy way of recognising who is an expert and who is not. The members of AMOL have either been invited to join the organisation because of their proven track record in the industry or because they have passed very stringent criteria which have been set to ensure that all members are sufficiently knowledgeable about the issues that commonly arise in motor offence defence.

We are proud to not only have membership of this organisation, but have been instrumental to its creation as we believe it will not only be a crucial guide to clients seeking to select the right representation, but it will also lead to improvements within the industry as members of the organisation share their experiences and tactics.

Our proudest moment to date has been our instrumental role in campaigning against the changes the previous government attempted to make to the costs recovery regime. Back in 2008 the government were planning to implement a new regime to limit the recovery of costs from the court if a defendant is acquitted of an offence. Jeanette Miller immediately set about campaigning against this move and even once the announcement was made that the new laws were coming in, she did not give up and single handedly mounted a campaign.

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 work we did to campaign against these unfair rules has saved the British Justice System from being grossly unfair for those defendants who are acquitted of the allegations made against them, This was an issue that seriously affected motorists more than any other sector of society as the motorist is most likely to be inelligible for Legal Aid.

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.