Scheme under Section 26A of the Legal Aid Ordinance

Since April 2002 Council implemented an assistance scheme to provide a legal aid appellant who passed the means test with funds to obtain a counsel's certificate without which he could not seek a review under Section 26A of Legal Aid Ordinance. Details of the scheme and its operation in 2002 - 2004 have been set out in previous reports.

As at 31 March 2006, the Scheme had 63 counsel (35 civil and 28 criminal) and 37 solicitors (30 civil and 7 criminal) on its panels. During the year, Council made a total of 84 assignments as follows -

Criminal -
Counsel
Solicitors
(a) Assignment to panel lawyers according to applicants' nomination;
65 64
(b) Assignment to non-panel lawyers (who have represented the applicants in the appeal court) according to applicants' nomination;
5 6
(c) Assignment to panel lawyers by rotation;
5 5
(d) Total assignment :
75 75


Civil -
Counsel
Solicitors
(a) Assignment to panel lawyers according to applicants' nomination;
9 7
(b) Assignment to non-panel lawyers (who have represented the applicants in the appeal court) according to applicants' nomination;
0 2
(c) Assignment to panel lawyers assigned by rotation;
0 0
(d) Total assignment :
9 9

During the period, there were 103 (87 criminal and 16 civil) applications. Of these, 84 (75 criminal and 9 civil) applications were approved and 17 (10 criminal and 7 civil) applications were rejected. 2 criminal applications were being considered.

As at 31 March 2006, 10 criminal certificates by counsel stating that the applicant had reasonable prospect of success and 73 (64 criminal and 9 civil) certificates by counsel stating that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success had been issued. 1 criminal case was being considered by counsel.

Of the 10 criminal cases which had been certified by counsel to have reasonable prospect of success, Legal Aid Department (LAD) had decided to grant legal aid in 5 cases and not to grant legal aid in the other 5 cases notwithstanding the counsel's certificates.

The 5 criminal cases which LAD had refused to grant legal aid had been submitted to the Review Committee (RC) for review. Of the 5 criminal cases submitted to RC, RC had affirmed LAD's decision not to grant legal aid in 2 cases and was still considering 2 other cases. For the remaining case, the Registrar did not constitute a committee since the applicant would soon be released.

A table showing the statistics in 2004 - 2005 and 2005 - 2006 (position as at 31.3.2006) is appended below -

(A) Applications received from
1.4.2004 to 31.3.2005
(B) Applications received from
1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006
Criminal
(i)		 Civil
(ii)		 Total
(i)+(ii)=(iii)		 Criminal
(iv)		 Civil
(v)		 Total
(iv)+(v)=(vi)
1. Applications processed by LASC
(a) approved 72 5 77 75 9 84
(b) rejected 7 0 7 10 7 17
(c) withdrawn 1 0 1 0 0 0
(d) under consideration 0 0 0 2 0 2
(e) total [(a)+(b)+(c)+(d)] 80 5 85 87 16 103
2. Certificate by Counsel
(a) has reasonable prospect of success 12 2 14 10 0 10
(b) no reasonable prospect of success 60 3 63 64 9 73
(c) not yet ready 0 0 0 1 0 1
(d) total [(a)+(b)+(c)]=1(a) 72 5 77 75 9 84
3. Cases with reasonable prospect of success
(a) legal aid granted upon review by DLA 9 1 10 5 0 5
(b) legal aid not granted upon review by DLA 3 1 4 5 0 5
(c) being considered by DLA 0 0 0 0 0 0
(d) total [(a)+(b)+(c)]=2(a) 12 2 14 10 0 10
4. Cases not granted legal aid upon review by DLA
(a) application not yet submitted to the Review Committee (RC) 0