Messrs Lewis Nedas Law instructed Mr Ian Bridge in this important case.

The Committal order by which the Appellant was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment was quashed after the Court of Appeal heard submissions that the Appellant should have been represented or, at least, should have consented not to be represented. The lack of representation in the circumstances of this case infringed Article 6 of the ECHR.

The case is of interest to all who face committal applications in the County Court. In his comprehensive analysis of relevant LASPO provisions, Lord Justice McCombe concludes that public funding is available (subject to means) to all those facing committal proceedings in the County Court, but not via the Judge, via application to the Director of the Legal Aid Agency. Committal proceedings should not thereafter proceed without either the grant of a representation order or an actual or de facto waiver of the entitlement to representation.

Anyone facing committal unrepresented should seek an adjournment in order that application can be made to the Legal Aid Agency.

Please see article in the Law Gazette here.