Lord Irvine reprimanded on costs

The Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, was last week found by the High Court to be ultra vires in producing regulations restricting reimbursement of legal costs to acquitted defendants in criminal cases.

He was ordered to pay costs, and refused leave for appeal to the House of Lords.

Under the regulations - created in September 1999 - if a prosecution fails, fees incurred were only recoverable by the solicitor if the client had actually paid those fees in advance.

In R v Liverpool City Justices ex parte L, a 15-year-old disabled boy, with no criminal record, was found not guilty by magistrates of charges of assault and affray.

Robert Broudie of Liverpool solicitors Broudie & Co was unable to recover fees incurred by the boy's parents - a teacher and a driving instructor - as they were being paid by instalments.

Mr Broudie brought a judicial review on the basis that Lord Irvine was ultra vires in bringing in the regulations, and that they were in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Last week, Lord Justice Rose and Mr Justice Elias, sitting in London's Administrative Court, found that the Lord Chancellor was ultra vires in making those regulations.

Mr Broudie said: 'Solicitors throughout the country who have not been able to accept clients, because they are unable to pay in full, in advance, will be relieved at the finding.'

A spokesman for the Lord Chancellors Department said: 'The department is considering its position in the light of the decision.'

Although refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords, the department still has the option of petitioning the Lords for leave to appeal.

l The Equal Opportunities Commission has announced backing for solicitor Jane Coker in the appeal by Lord Irvine against an employment tribunal finding last year that he was guilty of indirect sex discrimination in the selection of his special adviser, which went to former Herbert Smith partner Garry Hart.

Jeremy Fleming