tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4682595924476788450.post6466503166332096985..comments2023-12-20T04:00:48.837-08:00Comments on Justice Denied: Response to FoIA internal review request for costs of Paul Chambers prosecutionFlayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07389779350824751473noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4682595924476788450.post-26200863839681729342010-11-25T13:29:57.909-08:002010-11-25T13:29:57.909-08:00Hi MattIt's not too surprising that the CPS do...Hi Matt<br><br>It's not too surprising that the CPS don't record time. Other solicitors do because they can bill on it. That key motive is gone in the CPS. It also costs money to record time and process the data. So the CPS are in the position of not seeing a return for something that's going to cost.<br><br>In fact solicitors, in general, do not record costs (they call it "costs", but when a solicitor says "cost" it's shorthand for "how much it's going to cost you") but time. <br><br>You can, of course, relate the costs of employing the solicitor to the time it buys but there is no canonical way of doing that. There isn't the one-to-one relationship between hours and cost that would steer you to any fixed result. As a half-decent accountant I could come up with 10 costs for the same person's time without breaking sweat.<br><br>The key thing for the point you're making is the 9 hours (WTF 9 HOURS of CPS time on THAT). Why not ask them if 9 hours is a reasonable estimate of the actual time spent and, if not, what their best guess at a reasonable figure is?Tony Lloydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03740295390214409286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4682595924476788450.post-67681937032268390622010-11-25T13:31:37.124-08:002010-11-25T13:31:37.124-08:00Look on the bright side. Do your own esimate and p...Look on the bright side. Do your own esimate and publish it as such. They cant say its wrong.<br><br>Rolorolo_tamasihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12780549356275824765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4682595924476788450.post-32933369871309535222010-11-25T13:36:39.442-08:002010-11-25T13:36:39.442-08:00I am given to believe that there are formulas to e...I am given to believe that there are formulas to estimate the costs on a particular matter when that is required. Perhaps it is the result of this that I ought to be asking for.Flayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17240490638654621405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4682595924476788450.post-57829506248326640402010-11-25T13:39:29.461-08:002010-11-25T13:39:29.461-08:00I think Tony Lloyd is right. The CPS doesn't e...I think Tony Lloyd is right. The CPS doesn't employ solicitors, they do the work themselves, so they don't incur direct legal costs. You might then say that they should apportion part of one or more employees' salaries to the case, for the amount of time they spent on it. But I think even this would be misleading. If Paul Chambers hadn't been prosecuted, it's not as though the CPS salary costs would have been lower, or the taxpayer would have saved money.<br><br>I'm not sure what Tony is getting at when he says "WTF 9 HOURS of CPS time on THAT". The 9 hours relates to Counsel's (ie the barrister's) preparation time, so their barrister was charging £80 per hour for preparation for the court case, total £720, and earned £330 per day for the hearing.<br><br>I think it's important not to fall into the trap of thinking that because a bad decision was made in this case to prosecute, that that means everything the CPS does, including its FOI responses, is suspicious or devious. The response seems pretty unexceptional to me.John Selfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05761816149593541133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4682595924476788450.post-41894801578948040102010-11-25T13:46:55.880-08:002010-11-25T13:46:55.880-08:00Hang on a minute. There are two fees for counsel ...Hang on a minute. <br><br>There are two fees for counsel of the same amount, looks like it's standard. Now, is that a standard fee that is paid to counsel? In this case, you have the cost of it. If it's a standard charge to unsuccessful appellants then the question arises as to whether the payment is standard and, if so, how much it is. (Even if not standard, they have the invoice).<br><br>That gets us a cost for the last two bits. <br><br>Take the counsel's preparation time as is (£720).<br><br>We can discount the court costs, they're court costs and not CPS costs.<br><br>What they haven't done is estimate the time or their costs of:<br><br>1. The original case<br>2. The internal costs of supporting the solicitor<br><br>But, if we can get the answers to the cost of versus the charge for the other bits then WE can estimate it. I reckon you can get a supportable number on this yet!Tony Lloydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03740295390214409286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4682595924476788450.post-91600339621554298842010-11-25T13:50:07.640-08:002010-11-25T13:50:07.640-08:00It's not that everything the CPS have done is ...It's not that everything the CPS have done is this case is suspect or devious. It's just that the public have a right to know how much it is costing in real terms. Is it worth it? The fact that most seem to agree it should never have been prosecuted to start with (and that we know the CPS wouldn't have pursued it had they known it was not strict liability) suggests they ought to have the costs in mind. I asked them back in March to drop the prosecution and they could have done, especially since they were not optimistic at that time of a guilty verdict.Flayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17240490638654621405noreply@blogger.com