Why the Nigel Evans case could affect the entire legal system

Nigel Evans’ case did just that. Evans, who was cleared of rape and sexual assault, has spoken about the damaging effect that the trial had on his life, claiming that the CPS should pay his £130,000 legal bill. But is he right?

The logical answer is yes. Evans should be entitled to financial compensation to cover the cost
of his defence and reputational damage. But with government departmental budgets squeezed like never before, the question
is who should take on this financial burden?

Anyone who is refused legal aid but is subsequently acquitted, is entitled to have their legal fees reimbursed. However, the fact that reimbursement is limited to legal aid rates means it is not necessarily reflective of the full costs incurred. Current legal aid rates, largely unchanged for the last 20 years, are a shadow of the actual present day trial costs.

The offences Evans was accused of would have led to a lengthy prison sentence if convicted. This is undoubtedly why he used his life savings to present a robust defence and clear his name.

Now that the dust has settled, and Evans is left counting the cost, it is time for the government to ask who should be responsible for ever-increasing defence costs in the event of an acquittal. Should it fall to the government’s central funds, or should the
CPS foot the bill?

It may seem common sense
for the CPS to be held accountable, yet I fear that could lead to catastrophic results.
Our prosecuting authority has already been hit by huge spending cuts, leading to serious questions over access to justice. Forcing it to pay out on cases where defendants are acquitted could have a disastrous effect
on our entire legal system in terms of the possible deterrent effect on the independence of future prosecutions.

Evans may feel bitter about the financial and emotional trauma he has experienced in the fight to clear his name. But if he really does plan to campaign on the issue, he must place the needs of the country before personal financial concerns and consider the effect such sanctions will have on a body whose first priority should be the public interest,
not public funds. SJ

David Kirwan is managing partner at Kirwans