Ruling overturned in legal aid row case

The government has welcomed the ruling that a serious fraud trial should be resumed despite a row with barristers that led to it being halted.

In a statement, the Ministry of Justice said: "Legal aid remains available for all very high cost cases and even after the savings a QC working on a VHCC like this could expect to receive around £100,000.

"We have one of the most expensive legal aid systems in the world and we have to address this.

"We are entirely supportive of the self-employed Bar and have made strenuous efforts to secure their continuing co-operation, including changing our original proposals and introducing support measures where possible.

"It remains open to barristers to take up these cases."

Read: Ruling overturned in legal aid row case

A judge has warned that a serious fraud case at the centre of a row over legal aid cuts could still be stayed in future - meaning the defendants may yet be freed before facing trial.

In his Court of Appeal judgement, Sir Brian Leveson said: "We are not saying that there could not come a time when it may be appropriate to order that this indictment be stayed.

"That time, however, remains very much in the future and problems about representation will have to have developed considerably before such an exceptional order could be justified."

The Financial Conduct Authority has said it "welcomes" the Court of Appeal's decision to order the resumption of a serious fraud case at the centre of a legal aid row.

In a statement it said: "The FCA is committed to pursuing criminal action in appropriate cases and is pleased that this case can now proceed towards trial."

During the appeal hearing, Sean Larkin QC, for the FCA, told the court that the original decision to halt the trial was "unreasonable".

He argued that the public interest required a lesser remedy - an adjournment - in the case.

Read: Ruling overturned in legal aid row case

A judge has called on the government and the legal profession to "resolve the impasse" that led to a delay in a serious fraud trial.

Sir Brian Leveson ordered the continuation of a trial which had been halted on the basis that a row over legal aid meant the defendants could not get access to representation.

As he delivered the Court of Appeal verdict, Sir Brian said: "[It is] critical that there remains a thriving cadre of advocates capable of undertaking all types of publicly-funded work.

"We consider it of fundamental importance that the Ministry of Justice, led by the Lord Chancellor, and the professions continue to try to resolve the impasse that presently stands in the way of the delivery of justice in the most complex of cases."

A decision to throw out a multimillion-pound fraud trial after defendants said they could not get representation because of legal aid cuts has been overturned by the Court of Appeal.

Read: Fraud trial halted in legal aid row

The court of appeal will decide on today on whether it was lawful for a fraud case that collapsed earlier in the month as the judge agreed the defendants would not have a fair trial.

Read: Court of appeal to rule on legal aid trial collapse

Judge Anthony Leonard stayed the proceedings on May 1, but City watchdog the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) recently challenged his decision at the Court of Appeal. But during the appeal hearing, Sean Larkin QC, for the FCA said:

He argued that the public interest required a lesser remedy - an adjournment - in the case. If the appeal fails then the defendants, charged with conspiracy to defraud, would be acquitted.

Blog: Legal aid row could see serious criminals escape justice

The Court of Appeal will today give their ruling on a challenge against a decision to throw out a multimillion pound fraud trial after defendants said they could not get representation because of cuts to legal aid.

Read: Fraud trial halted in legal aid row

They have been urged to overturn a judge's ruling after the Prime Minister's brother, Alexander Cameron QC, successfully argued that the case should be halted because controversial Ministry of Justice (MoJ) reforms meant the five defendants could not find barristers of "sufficient competence".