Can Cyclists' Defence Fund Recover Costs?

[Keith]

Does anyone know whether the Cyclists' Defence Fund is able to recover its costs when it wins a case?

[[XAP]Bob]

Does anyone know whether the Cyclists' Defence Fund is able to recover its costs when it wins a case?

Should be able to...

Are you wondering what happens to the donations towards the costs in that case...

[AndyBSG]

Does anyone know whether the Cyclists' Defence Fund is able to recover its costs when it wins a case?

Should be able to...

Are you wondering what happens to the donations towards the costs in that case...

I'd guess they're used to fund the cases where they don't win?

[[XAP]Bob]

But the donations were for a specific defense...

[Richard Mann]

But the donations were for a specific defense...

Lets hope they were for a specific defence, otherwise this could get a bit expensive

[thirdcrank]

I hope the following answers your question.

A successful defendant in a criminal case can apply to have their reasonable defence costs reimbursed from public funds. It's been changed recently, to the extent that since October last year, afaik, "reasonable" means "at the legal aid rate."

This may be nitpicking but legal representatives get their £££ from their client personally or the legal aid authorities, so afaik, the CDF as an organisation would have no direct claim on public funds, although a defendant claiming costs would depend on their lawyer to make an appropriate claim.

There's the official explanation here:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/nation ... rafter1oct

Beyond that, there are, or were various historic criminal offences intended to prevent third parties supporting litigation. It's not something I know anything about, but if you want some late night reading, google "champerty" and "barratry."

If I've misunderstood, I'll try again but this isn't my normal territory.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS Barratry etc explained here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champerty_and_maintenance

[[XAP]Bob]

Presumably if costs are awarded then the funds never get used, so tbey ought to be returned.

Or are we suggesting that the CDF is bringing vexaxious cases?

[Keith]

Or are we suggesting that the CDF is bringing vexaxious cases?

Oooh, most definitely not! No, I have often wondered whether we really do get justice (regarding the costs) when a case is taken to court. One would hope that the innocent, or injured party, would be able to recover their costs if they win the case, whether they've funded the case themselves, or been funded by CDF or any other organisation. There will no doubt be cases where there is a strong reason to fight the case, but the cyclist ultimately loses, and CDF can't recover its costs. I simply wondered what happens regarding awarding costs in cases that are won, as I'd never seen anything written about this.

[thirdcrank]

Keith

Above all I hope I've answered your question. In terms of your most recent post, I think the simple answer is that if somebody is acquitted of a criminal charge, they can recover the costs of legal representation, but normally now only up to the legal aid amounts, which don't provide for expensive lawyers. I think it's worth pointing out that in most criminal cases, costs are relatively small, especially in the magistrates' courts. There are exceptions, Huhne being a recent example of substantial costs on both sides, even though his complete answer to the charges was a guilty plea..

I think that most of the big battles over costs relate to civil cases, especially defamation, where they can run way beyond what's in dispute.

I popped in the stuff about champerty etc because there has been some controversy over people collectively agreeing to meet costs. In civil cases which look as though they are going to be expensive, it's sometimes possible for one side to insist that the other demonstrates that they will be able to meet their opponent's costs if they lose. It can lead to even more lucrative work for the big wigs:-

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/jun/ ... amiewilson

[RickH]

According to the JustGiving page for the latest campaign for CDF (the fixed penalty notice for failing to stop behind the Advance Stop Line)

Any funds raised in excess of the £2000 this challenge is expected to cost will be used to support other legal challenges that defend the rights of cyclists.

Although I am no expert, I would assume that if the cost is less than £2000 (even £0 if full costs were to be awarded) it would be considered reasonable to use any additional surplus in the same way. I haven't, so far, found anything specific to that effect.

Rick.

[thirdcrank]

I think the issue there is that if you have a collection and are very specific about what it will go to, you have then no discretion about what to do with any surplus: you can only try to return it to donors. Careful wording of purpose allows discretion with any surplus because donors knew what would happen. Probably no big deal in a relatively small scale appeal but I believe that in some of the spontaneous appeals and collections which have followed things like lifeboat disasters, there has been some controversy.

[Keith]

Thanks, thirdcrank, for some enlightening comments, which satisfied my curiousity.
Keith.

[boris]

If I have given money to the cdf I trust they will spend it wisely. That is all.

When I do charity rides I ask for donations on the basis that I plan to ride a hundred miles on saturday and will pay all my costs , but am asking for donations to charity X which will receive the money whether I am successful or not .

I could not imagine writing to e.g. breast cancer research asking for my money back .

[thirdcrank]

.. .I could not imagine writing to e.g. breast cancer research asking for my money back .

It's not what you might do, but what others have done before.