​90 year old Dementia Sufferer Abandoned by Barrister

A 90 year old man with Dementia, who was due to appear at the Court of Appeal last month, was abandoned by his representation due to concerns over payment. The appeal was lodged by the Crown Prosecution Service against a decision made at the Crown Court in the man’s favour. The Barrister who had represented him at the Crown Court refused to draft the response or attend the hearing to represent him, claiming that her work at the Court of Appeal would not be covered by legal aid. Thankfully, Louisa Bagley, a Barrister at Bernard Chill & Axtell Solicitors, took on the case and saved this vulnerable man the ordeal of being unrepresented before the Lord Chief Justice at the Court of Appeal.

Mr Jones* was arrested in 2013 over an alleged historical claim dating back 55 years. During his initial interview, the Police noticed that Jones was suffering with memory issues and decided to instruct their own Neurologist to examine him. The 90 year old man had already visited his GP as he was concerned about his memory, but he had not yet been diagnosed with Dementia. Despite the concerns over his mental health and his age however, it took nearly 2 years for the case to go to trial. In this time, Jones’ memory had deteriorated dramatically, and he was now unfit to defend himself, unfit to plead, and unfit to instruct legal representation.

Before the trial, Mr Jones underwent tests from 2 separate psychiatrists, both of whom concluded that his Dementia was too severe for him to be able to stand trial. In addition to this, he was also suffering from a number of serious health conditions. He was examined by a number of medical experts who expressed concern at the impact a trial could have on his physical well-being. One doctor stated that: “I have no doubt that any doctor would agree that the stress of criminal proceedings is likely to worsen his health”. However, Mr Jones was still expected to attend Court, and during proceedings, he actually had to be rushed to Accident and Emergency after presenting symptoms of Hypothermia, caused by the air conditioning in the Court room.

Unsurprisingly, the Judge ruled in favour of stopping the charges against Mr Jones, as he had lost the ability to defend himself due to the long delay in bringing the case to trial. The Prosecution appealed this decision, however, and the case was scheduled to be heard at the Court of Appeal by the Lord Chief Justice, Lady Justice Hallet and Sir Brian Leveson PQBD.

If the Prosecution won the appeal, Mr Jones would still face the charges, despite his severe mental and physical health problems. It was at this point that Mr Jones’ Barrister, whose fees had been covered by legal aid funding up until the Prosecution appeal, raised concerns that representation at the Court of Appeal may not be covered by legal aid. It was believed by the Registrar’s Office at the Court of Appeal that legal aid would cover her work under a further application that was made or under the original legal aid certificate. However, she declined to do any preparation for the appeal until she had received proof that the work would be covered by legal aid, asking instead for the hearing to be adjourned. The Lord Chief Justice would not adjourn the proceedings, and so Mr Jones was in danger of being left unrepresented.

The case was passed on to Louisa Bagley, a highly regarded Barrister at Bernard Chill & Axtell Solicitors, who immediately agreed to represent him, regardless of his financial situation. “I couldn’t leave such a vulnerable person without legal help”, said Louisa. “If the Prosecution won the appeal, the consequences for this client would have been huge. The severity of his Dementia meant that there was no way he could defend himself, and the frailty of his health made it very dangerous for him to be put under any more stress. One of the reports written by a medical professional stated that: ‘given (his) history of… heart attack, it is my fear that prosecution would kill him’. It could have been literally a case of life and death. I agreed to represent him, and Bernard Chill & Axtell agreed for the work to be done for free if necessary”.

To make matters more difficult for Louisa, she was given very little time to prepare for the appeal. “I only found out in the afternoon that I was definitely going to be representing this man at the Court of Appeal the following morning. So, I stayed up until the early hours of the morning, going through all the papers to make sure I was able to provide my client with the best possible representation”.

Louisa went before the Lord Chief Justice, Lady Justice Hallet and Sir Brian Leveson PQBD, at the Court of Appeal the following morning. The Prosecution actually withdrew their appeal, and the Lord Chief Justice directed that Not Guilty verdicts should be entered in respect of Mr Jones committing the alleged offences.

“I was really pleased that we were able to assist”, said Louisa. “This means that our client can now go on to live the remainder of his life without any allegations hanging over him.”

Given the way Mr Jones’ original Defence Lawyer declined to continue with his case due to payment concerns, it is easy to understand how Lawyers have gained a reputation for being motivated by money. However, Louisa Bagley and Bernard Chill & Axtell are proof that some legal professionals care about more than just their fees. They took on this case without concern for payments because it was the right thing to do, not because it made financial sense.

*Name has been changed.