Plus ça Change

This issue is back, yet again:

Dear XXXX,

There is no precise guidance on the point and certainly none which supports the LAAs determination that a second reference is required on a further matter developing out of an initial DSCC referral. The only “logging” requirements are contained here and solely relate to matters NOT originally referred by the DSCC:

9.20 Paragraphs 9.18 and 9.19 above do not apply if:

(a) a Client attends the Police Station by prior agreement with the Police and requests you to represent him or her, provided that you inform the DSCC within 48 hours of the first attendance at the Police Station, and you actually represent him or her at the Police Station; or

(b) your instructions are received from a member of the Client’s immediate family or third party of similar status (including an appropriate adult under the PACE codes of practice), provided that you report the Matter to the DSCC prior to telephoning or attending the client; or

(c) you are already at the Police Station as Own Solicitor or Duty Solicitor when a Client requests advice from you provided that you report the matter to the DSCC within 48 hours of receiving instructions.

(9.47 repeats this guidance re. point c)

We have certainly assisted with one successful ICA appeal on the point back in 2014

We also received this in March 2016, from a CM in the Leeds office, regarding the same point:

Also, I have good news. I have been digging deeper in relation to the requirement for a second DSCC reference and have confirmation that where you have a valid reference for your first attendance, if this results in one matter being concluded and a second being bailed back where you attend the PS and can claim a second fixed fee, you DO NOT need to obtain a second DSCC reference. Simon Pottinger was correct. As I said when we met, it was always my understanding that a second reference was required but I’m more than happy to be told I’m wrong! I have of course shared this with the wider team. Apologise for the misunderstanding but I hope that this now clarifies the position.

We can supply CM details etc. if necessary – though I think she has now left the Agency. It certainly implies that she went for advice from Policy and Legal – or whatever that dept. is now called and reversed her view.


Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on LinkedIn
About Author: SP

4 comments on “Plus ça Change

  • Groundhog day!

  • Its like deja vu all over again

  • Hi Simon,
    quick query following our discussion about the 14 hr rule – any change in the offing? Seems to me its a human rights issue affecting part-time employees as the imposition will significantly affect the ability of individuals with any form of commitments ( family / disability or otherwise ) to earn a living at a “Duty” rate of pay – if it seems wrong ( esp from LAA GOV etc ) it usually is!
    Ged Hale

    • Currently under partial reveiw re AGFS time. There are a couple of important appeals coming up too which will hopefully help establish a bit clearere guidance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *