Agree. I've read that Djanogly letter and it is bizarrely naive. Why do politicians endlessly fall into this trap of thinking their grand plans will only have the consequences they intend or have foreseen? And why don't they consult practitioners properly? The people at the cola face generally have a good idea of how these things are really going to pan out.
Haven't looked at the proposals, just headlines on the radio, but presumably the public funding runs out once the injunction's been made, so the client still has to fund ancillary relief, children act and main suit themselves?
I think the system of awarding legal aid has always been unfair anyway, so I don't feel that this makes a huge difference. It certainly won't make any difference to those on low wages that would never have qualified for legal aid, but could still never hope to afford solicitors fees. Whether it be for divorce, clinical negligence or anything else.
It's pretty shocking actually imho. Just think of the SAHMs posting here whose husbands let them have only the child benefit and keep all their income to themselves. If they ever try to get out of their marriages, those women will face huge difficulties.
Sure, they can read things on the internet, but what if they don't quite understand it, or when they have to represent themselves in court and their ex H has a nasty barrister with clever tactics. And just think of the endless forms and the background knowledge they require.
And why do solicitors and barristers go through several years of training? What's it all for if you can apparently gain the same knowledge from reading stuff on the internet?!
I don't know a lot about legal aid, but I think this is going to have a major impact on society. In a bad way.
Nom, that can happen in divorce cases where up until the need for divorce, the wife had had almost unlimited access to her husbands fortune. The system has always been unfair.
2shoes, you are obviously speaking from personal experience, and if your dc has a claim of negligence and you can't afford the costs of taking it to court, then of course you should be funded for that. My point is simply that there are lots of people that have needed help with legal fees for a number of years, but they have never been entitlied to it either.
Out of interest, with the way that legal aid has been granted in the past, would your dc have been given it even if you were a high rate taxpayer, as the case would be in her name?