To ask for your support to protect Legal Aid?

[Thistledew]

Access to justice regardless of your financial means has been considered to be the fourth pillar of the Welfare State, and as essential a right as education, medical treatment, and benefits. The proposed cuts to funding for legal aid will deprive some of the most vulnerable people in the UK of effective access to justice.

Those who will be hit the hardest will be

women

children and young people

disabled children

migrants and family members of migrants

victims of environmental pollution or people injured at work

victims of clinical negligence

Many critics of the proposals have pointed out that the proposed cuts are unlikely to produce an overall saving in money. Many people will be forced to try to conduct litigation in person, leading to court time being wasted. In cases relating to housing matters, for instance, where people will only be able to receive legal advice once they are imminently at risk of losing their home, small legal problems that could be dealt with quickly and simply by early legal advice, will build up to big problems that can only be resolved through court intervention.

In asylum cases, justice really will be up for sale to those who can afford it. Under the current proposals, a person will not be entitled to receive funding if they have succeeded in their case but the Home Office appeals to a Higher Court. There would be nothing to stop the Home Office presenting a weak case at the first appeal, and then bringing out their stronger arguments when the person seeking asylum is unrepresented before a senior court.

Next week will see the third reading of the Legal Aid, Sentencing & Punishment of Offenders bill in parliament. Please support the Sound Off for Justice campaign by signing their petition and using this on-line form to lobby your MP.

[Thistledew]

Bump

[Thistledew]

Anyone interested?

[soandsosmummy]

What's your interest Thistledew - are you a legal aid funded solicitor by any chance?

[Thistledew]

No. I'm not a solicitor. My interest is that I consider access to justice and equality before the law to be central to the protection of our democratic society. It makes me truly angry that justice will become available only to those who can afford to buy it.

Why your question? If they started saying that everyone had to pay for education and healthcare, would you suppose that it was only the doctors and teachers who would have cause to complain?

The cuts in legal aid will be a bonus to unscrupulous solicitors who are only in it for the money. There will be plenty of people desperate enough to take out dodgy, high interest loans to pay legal fees, and plenty enough lawyers cashing in on the fact that they will be able to set their rates much higher than legal aid currently pays them.

[Fraidylady]

Yes, I have responded. I read about this, hidden away in the paper yesterday. I think we are going backwards and no-one cares about people who happen on unfortunate times anymore.
Here's a link to the Guardian editorial/comment:
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/26/legal-aid-cuts-social-welfare-law<a class="break-all" href="//INTCMP=SRCHwww.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/26/leader-legal-aid-new-poor-law?INTCMP=SRCH" rel="nofollow noindex" target="_blank">//INTCMP=SRCHwww.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/26/leader-legal-aid-new-poor-law?INTCMP=SRCH

[TrinityRhino]

the legal aid system needs a reform anyways

we don't have enough money to seek justice and legal aid won't help us

but thats just me being mad about the whole damn thing so ignore me

[Fraidylady]

I (obviously!) don't know anything about this apart from what I read in the papers, but I do wonder why, if 'the legal system needs reform', 'reform' should always mean a cut in funding?
Surely there are other, more creative ways, to reform a system for the better?

[Thistledew]

Trinity Sound Off for Justice have put together alternative proposals for saving money.

[Thistledew]

What's your interest in not supporting the campaign soandsosmummy? Are you a greedy landlord rubbing your hands in glee about the fact that if your client wants to take you to court to force you to repair your dangerous wiring and damp that is causing her daughter to be constantly ill, she is going to have to learn the legal distinction between asking you to make repairs and asking you to make improvements? Because the lawyer you will be able to afford to represent you will know the difference, and will know that if he can convince a judge that your tenant is asking for the wrong thing, you won't have to do anything to solve the problem?

[Andrewofgg]

Note also that in some cases where d.v. is alleged the complainant will still be eligible but the defendant won't. Since defendants have the right to make their defence (there is a clue in the name) that will mean that more of them will do so in person; and litigants in person are - rightly - given more leeway in what they ask than lawyers. Which could lead to unpleasant experiences for complainants. It may sound paradoxical to suggest here of all places that men (usually) accused of d.v. should be given legal aid too but it is in the interest of complainants as well as of defendants - and of course of justice.

There is a wider point too. If a publicly-funded claim (of any sort) fails and the defendant privately represented s/he will normally be left out of pocket. That may be fair against insured parties; it is profoundly unjust to anybody else. It turns publicly-funded litigation against private parties into legalised blackmail and extortion. The Legal Services Commission (and the Equality and Human Rights Commission) should be made to stand behind anybody whom they fund and pay the other side's (uninsured) costs if the person they are funding loses. Anyone disagree?

[FullBeam]

Thistledew, I started a thread in Chat about this yesterday www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/1330210-Did-you-get-legal-aid-for-your-divorce-How-do-you-feel-about-it-ending because I am astonished that more fuss isn't being made about this.

People should be more concerned about this attack on legal aid because once it's gone it won't be coming back.

I think you might be having difficulty drumming up support because:
-lots of things are being cut right now
-people who currently get legal aid will continue to get if for their current matter (so they won't be affected)
-people who had it in the past don't want to think about it again
-most people think they won't ever need it

So the only people who seem to care are those who are in the legal profession (who everyone wrongly thinks make shedloads of money out of it) and those working with the least privileged who can see the effect it will have.

I have signed the petition and written to my MP but I fear it is a lost cause.

[Thistledew]

That's great FullBeam. This is the fourth thread on the subject I have started, and the others got very little interest.

I think there is a general anti-lawyer feeling, because people feel that you either employ them and lose, in which case what is the point, or if you win your case, then you only got what you should have got anyway, so the lawyer hasn't actually brought you any benefit, have they . It will just be sad to see many more people ending up losing, and having only themselves, rather than a lawyer to blame.

[Thistledew]

It's a bit like saying that all doctors are money-grabbing fat cats, as I never should have been ill in the first place, and all she has done is make be as well as I was to start with.

[FullBeam]

The amount of money that would be saved is actually very small so it's not really about budgets, it is a political act.

Why, I wonder, would a government want to reduce access to the courts, reduce the numbers of lawyers and make justice harder to get??

[Thistledew]

WTF? Why has this thread been moved from AIBU to Legal?

[FullBeam]

Quick before it disappears!

[Jellykat]

Have signed and emailed.

I was fortunate to receive Legal Aid many years ago, in the family courts..I would hate to think any LP who was in the same position as i was, couldn't get help in the future.

[blinkineck]

Broadly speaking I support the OP's position. Having said that I think some people have milked legal aid in contact and residence matters for years. The system definitely needs reforming. It would be a terrible shame if people claim dv simply to qualify for assistance. I've little doubt that this will happen

[Andrewofgg]

babybarrister It had not occurred to me that shoals of men will say "No, she hit me, I want legal aid" - but of course you are right. And the LSC will have to take it seriously. Another triumph for joined-up government . . .

[Thistledew]

Apparently, according to several MNers, IABU to ask people to consider these issues, but rather than say so here, this thread has been banished to a low-traffic area.

[blinkineck]

I think the Govt want fewer lawyers. I'm convinced they want a smaller Bar. I think it's difficult to get people to understand how this could adversely affect them.

[Tianc]

I'm interested but exhausted by all the other battles. Thanks for carrying on raising it, Thistle. I will look and sign shortly...

[Thistledew]

blinkinek - no, the Govt wants fewer lawyers and a smaller Bar for social welfare and matrimonial areas. They are quite happy for corporate, tax, defamation cases etc to take up as much court time as they wish (litigants only have to pay for the legal fees of the lawyers, and a relatively modest court fee that does not actually cover the costs of running the court room).

But then this Govt went to school and are good mates with the types of lawyers who do that sort of work, and don't generally hang out with people doing legally aided work.

[cantfindamnnickname]

Already signed and I dont think most people realise that you will only get legal aid in domestic violence matters and the definition of "violence" will be very narrow - it would have to have been in the previous 12 months, incidents must have been reported to police and if there has been an injunction then you cannot satisy the LSC by having an undertaking by the other person - the Court must have made a ruling.

Not sure how the government think the Court system will continue to run effectively with all these litigants in person who have no idea how to deal with legal proceudres.