Standard fees for Bail Act casesFollowing extensive discussion on amending regulations, to bring payment for Bail Act and other ancillary proceedings within the standard fees paid for substantive magistrates' court proceedings, these were laid before Parliament on 28 September.R v Legal Aid Board ex parte Heptonstall 1996, established that an offence under s 6 Bail Act 1976 was not incidental to the original offence and a separate standard fee was therefore payable.

The judicial review was financially supported by the Society.As a result of this case, the Lord Chancellor's Department (LCD) proposed draft regulations in May 1996 that would return to the government's original intention for the Standard Fee Scheme.There was a significant benefit for firms following the judicial review where legal aid was extended, although benefit to the profession over the intervening 2 1/2 year period has probably been quite small as courts had stopped extending legal aid to cover Bail Act proceedings unless it was clear that the defendant was going to receive a custodial sentence for that offence.The Society opposed the amendments on the basis of 'swings and roundabouts' and the LCD's view that regulations should be amended to take into account every change in law, practice or procedure.

The survey that formed the basis of standard fees did not separately identify Bail Act offence work.Treatment and testing ordersTreatment and testing orders are included in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and are being piloted in Merseyside, South East London and Gloucester in both magistrates' and Crown Courts.

The aim of the new orders will be to assess the offender's suitability, with his or her consent, to undergo treatment for a drug problem, either as part of, or in association with, an existing community sentence.

The crucial difference between this new order and the present treatment requirement is that the court will have regularly to review the offender's progress on the order.

It is also proposed that drug testing should be mandatory.

It is envisaged that the court should view the progress of the order on a regular and pre-set basis, and the hearings should be held at periods of not less than one month.

In addition, each hearing might double up as a review hearing.It is not expected that either the prosecution or the defence representatives would need to attend review hearings as a general rule.

The defendant would turn up with the probation officer in charge.

A difficulty could arise if the review hearing turned into breach proceedings, which it might do.

Courts should then presumably, adjourn to allow defendants to seek representation on the assumption that they had not turned up for the review with a solicitor.

The Legal Aid Board's view is that if breach proceedings ensue, it would accept these as separate proceedings for standard fee purposes.

The Society understands there will be Home Office guidance to courts stating that legal aid officers/clerks should take into account the purposes of the hearing when decidi ng whether or not legal aid is to be granted.

There is nothing to preclude defence representatives from seeking legal aid, but the general assumption is that it would not be appropriate on a straightforward review.ABWOR and other orders under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998The relevant orders are anti-social behaviour orders, sex offender orders, child safety orders and parenting orders under sections 1,2,11 and, in some circumstances, section 8 of the Act.Draft amendments to the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) Regulations 1989 were laid before Parliament on 11 November.

The amendments cover the situation where:-- A client has not instructed a solicitor in advance, the client turns up at the court, the court wants to deal with it on the day, the client is happy for the court to do so and there is a solicitor within the precincts of the court to represent the client.For circumstances other than the above, the client will have to make an application for ABWOR to the Legal Aid Board.

The client will have to comply with the conditions set out in regulation 22 (6A) of the Legal Advice and Assistance Regulations 1989.

This will not require an amendment to the regulations (because there is a second instrument which does not need debate and which has been given approval to come into force on 1 December).

It brings the amendments to the scope regulations within the Legal Advice and Assistance Regulations 1989.A draft circular has gone to pilot courts explaining there will not be any legal aid available for some of these orders.

Some could fall within the ambit of criminal legal aid however.

Appeals to the High Court would fall under civil legal aid.Removal of committal proceedings for indictable-only offencesAs from January 1999 a pilot scheme will be running in certain parts of the country as a result of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 whereby anyone over the age of 18 and in certain circumstances a child or young person, charged with an indictable-only offence will be 'sent' straight to the Crown Court for trial, with only questions of bail and legal aid being considered by the magistrates' court.

Other related offences and/or defendants may also be 'sent' straight to the Crown CourtAn amendment to the Legal Aid in Criminal and Care Proceedings (Costs) Regulations 1998 will provide that any claim for legal aid costs in a case 'sent' rather than committed or transferred to the Crown Court for trial will be determined in its entirety including the magistrates' court proceedings, by the Crown Court as part of a combined Crown Court claim.The combined claim for legal aid costs for both the magistrates' court and Crown Court proceedings in a case 'sent' to the Crown Court will be submitted on the appropriate Crown Court form and determined in one of two ways:1) As the result of a non-standard fee determination using either the magistrates' court proceedings prescribed rates-depending on the venue of the proceedings, when the work was done and whether or not the firm of solicitors holds a franchise; or2) as a Crown Court standard fee.

In assessing whether the lower or principal standard fee should be paid, or whether the claim escapes standard fees by exceeding the upper fee limit, determining officers will use the appropriate prescribed rates referred to at (1) above.Greg Lewis is a policy executive in the Law Society's solicitors' remuneration team.=WordStar 4.0B Messages 14 Feb 87Copyright (C) 1983,1987 MicroPro International Corp.All