Gittins & Anor, R. v

Gittins & Anor, R. v

There is no statutory mechanism disentitling counsel from receiving public funds under a retrospective representation order for work previously privately funded, provided any private payments are repaid. The prohibition on dual funding only applies after the representation order is made.

Parties
Appellant: R; Respondent: Marvin Gittins; Respondent: Safdar Khan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Retrospective Representation Order
Outcome
payment under the representation order allowed, subject to repayment of private funds
Legal Topics
Retrospective Representation Orders, Public and Private Funding, Legal Aid Regulations
Criminal Law Legal Aid Retrospective Representation Orders Public and Private Funding Legal Aid Regulations

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Appellant

Marvin Gittins

Respondent

Safdar Khan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Ruling on Retrospective Representation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether counsel can be paid under a retrospective representation order when they have already received private payment for the same work
  2. 2 Whether public and private funding can co-exist for the same legal work

Ratio Decidendi

There is no statutory mechanism disentitling counsel from receiving public funds under a retrospective representation order for work previously privately funded, provided any private payments are repaid. The prohibition on dual funding only applies after the representation order is made.

Court Disposition

payment under the representation order allowed, subject to repayment of private funds

Orders

  • Counsel to provide proof that any private payments received for the work have been repaid.