If you get remanded and are later found not guilty, are you compensated anyway?

[Northern_Piper]

@Peter_Morris

In criminal trials a defendant does not need to recover costs - he **has **no costs. A lawyer is provided for him, free of charge, and the bill goes to the government. Whether he’s found guilty or acquitted he does not have to pay his lawyers. Not just the trial, either, he gets free legal representation during the investigation.

I’m curious - what jurisdiction are you referring to, Peter Morris? I’m not familiar with a system where everyone charged with an offence gets their lawyer paid for by the public - I’m only familiar with systems where Legal Aid only covers those under a certain income level. If you’re over that level, you have to pay for your defence lawyer yourself.

[Northern_Piper]

@Gfactor

I’ve always understood the English Rule to be a rule about the award of attorneys’ fees.

In Canada, “costs” include both court costs and lawyers’ fees. The Court can award costs against the unsuccessful party in a civil suit.

There’s two level of costs awards: party-and-party costs, and solicitor-client costs.

Party-and-party costs include court fees and disbursements, plus a set amount for lawyers’s fees, as set out in a tariff of costs issued as part of the Court’s rules. This is the type of award that is normally given by the courts to the successful party.

Solicitor-client costs means the unsuccessful party pays the entire bill of the other party. This type of award is reserved for cases where the court wishes to sanction the conduct of the unsuccessful party, or the balance between the parties calls for such an award.

[Peter_Morris]

@Northern_Piper

I’m curious - what jurisdiction are you referring to, Peter Morris?

UK, as I said. I think it’s correct for UK, but IANAL, ICBW

I’m not familiar with a system where everyone charged with an offence gets their lawyer paid for by the public - I’m only familiar with systems where Legal Aid only covers those under a certain income level. If you’re over that level, you have to pay for your defence lawyer yourself.

As far as I’m aware, even the wealthy are entitled to free legal representation in criminal matters, if they want it. They can choose to pay for their own lawyer, though.

[Northern_Piper]

I think it’s a bit more nuanced than you’ve suggested.

From the Legal Services Commission: Can I Get Legal Aid?:

Testing eligibility for criminal legal aid

In magistrates’ courts, legal aid can be granted to defendants who could be imprisoned.

Defendants need to pass a financial means test. Some people automatically pass this test:

• those who are under the age of 16

• people aged 16 or 17 with no income and living with their parent or guardian
  people under 18 and in full-time education

-those on unemployment benefits.

There is no financial means test for cases heard in the Crown and higher courts.

Legal aid can be granted to all defendants. The court can issue an order to recover legal aid costs if they believe a defendant could have paid for their own defence.

So it sounds to me that for for the less serious offences in magistrates’ courts, there is a means test - a wealthy person would have to pay for their own lawyer.

For the more serious offences in the Crown and higher courts, there is no means test, but if a wealthy person relies on a legal aid lawyer, the court can order that wealthy person to pay the costs of that legal aid defence.