Recovery of Defence Cost Orders
178. A solicitors' firm (T.V.Edwards) has submitted
written evidence which makes the point that a more efficient use
of resources might be to utilise Recovery of Defence Cost Orders
(RDCOs)[240] at the
end of a trial where a defendant is found guilty, since this would
avoid penalising the innocent whose payments would have to be
refunded in any event. They concluded that:
"The better approach is the effective operation
of recovery of defence costs orders which now have to be made
as a matter of duty at the conclusion of convicted cases in the
Crown Court (which includes any related magistrates court work).
This has the benefit of avoiding re-cycling money in the event
of an acquittal. A more practical course would be to extend the
orders in defined cases to the magistrates' courts."[241]
179. Recovery of Defence Cost Orders have not been
very successful in the Crown Court. This may be because there
is a much higher probability of imprisonment, which would clearly
impact upon a defendant's ability to pay. Recovery of Defence
Cost Orders could, however, be more effective in the magistrates'
court, where imprisonment is a less likely outcome.
180. Mr Justice Richards concurred with this view,
commenting:
"I do think that the experience in the Crown
Court is attributable to the fact that so few of the defendants
in the Crown Court have means that would justify a contribution.
I have made one Recovery of Defence Costs Order when sitting as
a judge in the Crown Court in several years, and it is not from
want of considering, in the case of each defendant, whether such
an order is justified. It is simply that only in one case has
there been evidence that warranted such an order."[242]
181. The Minister was fairly dismissive of the use
of RDCO's in the magistrates' courts, indicating that "you
would want to look at what you are going to save…in the magistrates'
courts given the average costs of a case, how it would work and
the fact that most defendants go unrepresented anyway".[243]
This statement would appear to overlook the fact that it is precisely
these modest cases which the Department is attempting to target
through this draft Bill.
182. Over the course of our inquiry, we have been
told by a number of witnesses that there are better ways of controlling
spending on criminal legal aid than reintroducing means testing
and transferring responsibility for grant. We recommend that the
Department should focus more of its efforts in other areas, such
as reducing expenditure on the most expensive criminal cases,
which consume a disproportionate amount of the Criminal Defence
Service budget. We recognise that the Department has made some
progress in this area, but believe that further savings could
be found. Greater use of Recovery of Defence Costs Orders, including
in the magistrates' courts could also be considered. In addition,
initiatives which could create savings to the overall cost of
the Criminal Justice System by, for example, effective trial management,
should be pursued and supported.
229 
