Travel disbursements

by | Sep 5, 2020 | Criminal Legal Aid billing, Patrick

Payment of travel disbursements is an issue that can cause great annoyance for practitioners – particularly the LAA view that public transport should be used where possible. How should this issue be approached and what can you claim?

It is worth saying at the outset that I will set out the LAA’s view as applied in practice. Given the actual sums involved are quite small, many firms don’t even bother to seeking a redetemination let alone go to a Costs Judge (though I am aware of at least one case that did go that far – with only limited success)

Travel to the Magistrates’ Court – in respect of Crown Court cases, the LAA generally allow private transport rates for travel to the Magistrates’ Court

Travel to the Crown Court – here the LAA generally expect travel to be by public transport. However, they will allow travel at private transport rates in specific circumstances. Examples of where they have allowed it in the past are:

  • There are some areas where members of staff can feel uncomfortable standing at a bus stop – this site police.uk gives details of the crime rate in individual areas and can be used to get statistics on e.g. robberies in any particular area

 

  • The member of staff will have to carry large volumes of papers which is impractical by public transport

 

  • There is too much walking involved if traveling by public transport (15 minutes is my rule of thumb)

 

  • Public transport requires more than one journey (e.g. a bus journey followed by a train journey). Here the risk of delay is doubled. “Sorry sir, the bus was late” didn’t work at my school and I am pretty sure it wouldn’t work with a Crown Court judge

 

  • The difference in journey time is such that it means that the cost saving of public transport is outweighed by the loss of time it involves – Google maps is useful providing evidence on this issue

 

  • (Somewhat related to (v) above) Traveling by public transport to the relevant Court requires an unreasonable start time (one specific example is travel from Birmingham to Hereford Crown Court)

 

Of course, one very good reason at the moment for traveling by car is to avoid the risk of catching the coronavirus – the requirement to wear masks indicates a view that traveling by public transport is risky – so whilst face coverings remain mandatory on public transport it would not seem fair to penalise firms for allowing their staff to travel by car.

The other issue that raises its head from time to time is travel to a distant Court. The LAA view generally is that provided the defendant’s home address (which could be the prison s/he is held at) is close to the firm’s, they will pay for travel to Court (provided of course it was necessary to attend Court). Where the defendant’s home address is however distant from the firm’s, special circumstances will need to be raised (e.g. previous involvement with the defendant, nature of the case).