The Guardian reported that a £4.5 million fraud trial in the UK has restarted after an appeals court ruled that the defendants will receive a fair trial. Earlier, the defendants had filed a complaint arguing that the legal aid disputes could mar their chances for a fair trial. Cameron represented the defendants on a pro-bono basis, the newspaper said.
Earlier this month, the land bank fraud case, represented by the prime minister's brother Alexander Cameron QC, was dismissed by a Southwark crown court judge over reasons that the defendants were represented inadequately and therefore, will not be able to receive a fair trial.
The Guardian noted that barristers who have specialty experience with complex cases like the land bank fraud case, or otherwise known as Very High Cost Cases (VHCC), had been boycotting the latest instructions as a form of protest when the UK Ministry of Justice recently imposed a 30% cut in legal aid fees.
The judge who had ruled to revive the land bank fraud case, argued that the stay on the case was overturned as the court could not become involved in the industrial confrontations between the minister and the barristers over legal cut aids.
"The criminal justice system in this country requires the highest quality advocates both to prosecute and defend those accused of crime. It is of fundamental importance that the MoJ [Ministry of Justice] led by [Justice Secretary Chris Grayling] and the professions continue to try to resolve the impasse that currently stands in the way of the delivery of justice in the most complex cases," Sir Brian Leveson, the senior judge, said.
The revival of the case in court is good news for Grayling and the Financial Conduct Authority, who is prosecuting the case, the Guardian said.
Solicitor advocate Lee Adams, who will be representing the defendants in the reactivated case, has this to say about Leveson's decision, "Our justice system is widely regarded internationally as one of the best. It relies on healthy competition between advocates to bring about the fairest result for everyone involved. Despite the court's political neutrality, this decision unfortunately does much to hurt that principle and will be relied on by a government seemingly hell bent on looking tough on crime whatever the cost to justice. We are considering what steps are now best for our clients."
