Court confirms legal aid costs can be recovered in civil contempt proceedings
The Court of Appeal has ruled that courts have the authority to order defendants in civil contempt proceedings to repay the cost of their legal representation, dismissing an appeal brought by Selman Turk.
In Selman Turk v The Legal Aid Agency, the court upheld a High Court decision requiring Mr Turk to repay £392,823.70 in legal aid costs following earlier contempt proceedings.
The case centred on whether a Recovery of Defence Costs Order (RDCO) could be imposed in civil contempt proceedings under the Criminal Legal Aid (Recovery of Defence Costs Orders) Regulations 2013. Mr Turk argued that such proceedings fell outside the scope of the regulations and that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to make the order.
The Court of Appeal rejected that argument. Giving judgment, Lord Justice Zacaroli concluded that civil contempt proceedings fall within the definition of “criminal proceedings” for the purposes of the statutory framework governing legal aid.
The court found that, although civil contempt proceedings are classified as civil in nature, they are treated as criminal proceedings under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. As a result, they fall within the category of “relevant proceedings” where an RDCO may be made.
Mr Turk had previously been found in contempt of court for breaching disclosure obligations linked to a freezing order. He was initially sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment, although that sentence was later suspended on appeal. Following those proceedings, the Legal Aid Agency applied for recovery of the costs incurred in his legal representation.
The High Court ruled in 2025 that it had jurisdiction to make the order and directed Mr Turk to repay the full amount. The present appeal challenged that finding on a point of statutory interpretation.
The Court of Appeal determined that the wording of the regulations clearly includes civil contempt proceedings. It rejected submissions that limiting the definition to other forms of criminal proceedings was necessary to avoid inconsistency or unintended consequences within the legal aid regime.
The judgment also addressed arguments concerning fairness, including the position of defendants who are acquitted. The court acknowledged differences in how legal aid contributions operate across different types of proceedings but found these did not justify departing from the plain meaning of the legislation.
It further noted that individuals facing civil contempt proceedings are entitled to legal aid without means testing, which distinguishes them from defendants in other criminal courts and supports the availability of cost recovery mechanisms.
The ruling confirms that courts must consider making RDCOs at the conclusion of relevant proceedings, subject to financial circumstances and considerations of reasonableness.
The decision establishes clarity on a point of principle that had not previously been considered at the appellate level and confirms that recovery of legal aid costs can apply in civil contempt cases.