But what is the conflict of interest? Your perceived view that a British citizen should be deported even though there is no country that would agree to take them?
Or is it the fact that people accused of crime get legal aid for a defence?
Take this scenario. 11 year old girl is abducted and brutally murdered. A local young man from a family of immigrants is accused by other girls of indecent exposure, and is arrested by the police who question him intensively for three days without a lawyer being present, after which he confesses. That's a horrible crime, right, he must be bang to rights, he shouldn't get legal aid, should he?
The trouble is, the young man in question is Stefan Kiszko, who was wrongly convicted of the murder of Lesley Molseed. Those young girls later admitted they had made the indecent exposure accusation for a laugh, witnesses the police had never bothered to look for fully confirmed that he was miles away at the relevant time, and forensic evidence demonstrated conclusively that he was not the murderer. Do you still think he shouldn't be given legal aid?
You will no doubt say that no-one thinks the Rochdale man is innocent. But no-one knew that before his trial, just as no-one knew in Kiszko's case. If we could determine before a trial who is innocent and therefore deserving of legal aid, we wouldn't need trials at all. Sadly it really isn't that easy to work out, as history has demonstrated time after time.