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.

andrewfogg, i agree with your wider point from earlier about state funded blackmail...i have been a victim of such a case......cost me lots of money, whilst the other side had their case based entirely on lies state funded...bizarrely even their solicitor said they didnt really have a case but thats the law...legal aid paid, but sadly not for me. (i have been left traumatised and out of pocket with no recompense (and as a tax payer feel i have paid both mine AND their legal costs)and so based on this i think eligibility should be more thoroughly investigated)

What's going on Thistledew? What's wrong with this thread being in AIBU?

I would not be at all surprised if requiring litigants in big commercial, shipping and tax cases to pay the actual costs of running the court whilst their hearing was on would cover or very nearly cover the whole of the proposed legal aid cuts.

They want the criminal bar to be smaller too. I think they'd like a system similar to the Scottish Bar. They'd scrap criminal legal aid if they could as they have done or are planning to do with other fields but there'd be utter chaos if they did. They've come up with an altenative strategy instead, delay paying people for work they've done for months. Not fair.

Sorry Thistledew but commercial, shipping and tax litigants are also entitled to have the justice system provided - it is part of what the State does. Or should be.

I wish people were able to see what the implications of these changes will be so that they might be more interested (or even outraged). In this little corner of MN we are more or less preaching to the converted!

Here's just one for instance.

If a lone parent on a low income has an ex partner with money who decides to keep the children after contact 'because she hasn't been treating them properly', she will either have to beg or borrow the money from somewhere to employ a lawyer or represent herself. What chance will she stand against an experienced lawyer? She could lose residency of her children because she can't get legal aid.

Personally I think we have a superb quality of judicary with tonnes of experieence in these matters who, in the example given by Fullbeam would be able to suss out any unfairness.

She might not be able to put her case forward at all so even a brilliant judge won't help her. Perhaps because of learning difficulties, physical disability, mental health issues, or not having £350 for the court fee.

Blinkinek- the trouble is that we have an adversarial system. Yes, many judges would be capable of seeing arguments that were not being presented by a litigant in person and find in their favour, but that is not what they are supposed to do. There are strong arguments for moving towards an inquisitorial system, but this should be done purposefully, by consent, and not by stealth.

Andrewfogg- I agree that justice should be provided for all, but the litigants in big cases would still be able to access justice, they would just have to pay more for it. Quite a lot of these cases involve millions of pounds, and millions are paid in the lawyers fees. The litigants would be able to pay a few thousand for all or some of the court costs.

The problem with taking away legal aid is that many people will be deprived of effective access to justice because they will not be able to afford a lawyer.

Once again, the poor are deprived of a service that they need, because the rich are not required to pay for something they can afford.

I agree it is less than ideal, but it is more fair than what is currently proposed.

I think the judiciary will adapt to deal with the situation. I don't agree that family courts are adversarial. It may often seem like that but the process is supposed to be child focussed.
Fullbeam. I don't disagree with you but litigants with the problems you describe would get even more support from an experienced judge.

Perhaps not so much in the family courts, but it will be a real problem in other areas such as housing and immigration. These also tend to be 'law heavy', in which new law is created pretty frequently. It will place an impossible burden on judges and cause caselaw to completely stagnate.

I agree the burden on judges will be huge. I hope they'l be up to the task.

I think justice should be accessible for all however the current system is not working in divorce cases. There was a poster on another thread last week whose partner's previous wife had legal aid and had, apparently knowingly, played the system to drag everything out leaving him with a choice of give in to her demands or ruin himself financially as he had to pay for his legal help.

I have no experience of the law and am reluctant to believe the Daily Mail-ish stories I have read so have no solution to offer but think the system needs reforming

I never said I wasn't interested in supporting the campaign, indeed I ventured no opinion at all beyond asking what the OPs interest was. I wanted to know so that it would help me form an opinion as to how I should interpret her post.

Legal aid definitely needed reforming but I am not in fact convinced that these are the right reforms. I would want to spend some more time looking at them before I decided.

Since it appears that I earn a little over the thresh hold and I am not a land lord or an employer these reforms have little impact upon me personally.

However I believe everyone deserves justice before the law and I am especially concerned by some of the implications for the family division.

Adding my [2p] to the thread,

Thanks for raising this thistledew, legal aid is very important for a fair society.
This arbitrary cut certainly intends to deprive people of access to justice rather than 'save money'.

Access to justice regardless of your financial means has been considered to be the fourth pillar of the Welfare State

But already the system is not universal. Most people actually do not qualify for legal aid and often this means you are at a huge disadvantage anyway.

The problem is that we cannot afford to do everything. So ok, if we don't cut legal aid, what do we cut instead?

And quoting mysterious "critics" who claim it won't save money is a waste of time really. I'm sure we can find the same "critics" who will claim cutting benefits/libraries/schools won't save money either.

We have to draw the line somewhere.

just signed..thanks for pointing this out! Hope it doesn't go ds needed two tribunals in 3 yrs to get an 'average' level of education for ds SNs....if this goes I will never be able to fight for Speech and language therapy etc for my dc with serious communication disorder.

Please everyone sign up!

can you put this petition in Special Needs Children please? I don't know how to do it....lots will sign their if don't already know about it.

To be honest we all know who we think should have legal aid but quite frankly I don't want illegal immigrants having this when they have no claim to stay and use the legal aid budget to drag the border agency through the courts for what can be the most flimsy cases that they have some auntie in wales they never meet ec

Also I do not want to see it used for parents who have neglected and abused their children as a way to hold up adoption
When they are clearly not having their children returned and are basically using the legal aid to give ss a bloody nose

I have known parents who will never have their children returned but then go on to use the legal aid system to block adoption or to alter contact agreements that they have no intention of keeping to

Maypole1- I am afraid you are mis-informed.

The Legal Services Commission already has a requirement that a case must have 'merit' ie at least a 50% chance of succeeding before legal aid can be granted. Solicitors firms are monitored on their performance and have their contracts taken away if they fail to win a certain number of cases (I think it is about 60%, maybe higher).

So an irregular immigrant will not get funding for their case if they have 'no claim to stay'.

There is also a principle in the law that there is a separation between the lawyers who present the case and the judge or jury who decides it. It is not for the lawyer to make a moral judgement about who they think should win their case or not. Everyone is entitled to the same rigour of a fair hearing, because as soon as you remove this for the people you think don't 'deserve' it, then it becomes harder to get justice for those who are 'deserving'.

Maypole, when that state wants to imprison someone for life, their guilt must be proven in a court of law. In my opinion, removing someone's children forever is a decision which also should be proven in a court of law. Some would argue that losing your children is worse than life imprisonment.

Yes, of course,just as guilty people force a trial rather than pleading guilty, so some inadequate parents claim, through the family courts, that they should be allowed to keep looking after their children. But it is absolutely central to our society that we are allowed to defend ourselves and that these life altering decisions are made by juries and judges after a fair trial.

Just as the police can't decide if a person is guilty, social services should not be given the final decision about a permanently removing a child from his or her parents.

maypole - Im sure you wouldnt want the situation where SS can come in and remove children with no overseer of that decision.

The Courts are there to consider all the facts and not just the ones the SS team put forward - you are making a massive decision to remove children from a family. Surely that child deserves to know that somebody reviewed everything.

In any event legal aid will not be removed for care cases and its not means tested anyway

What I am saying is so much weight is put on the parents rights and not enough on the childs rights
When making cp decisions the parents rights, needs and wants should not come In to it only the Childs

The courts in my view are leaned towards the parent which is my view is wrong is should lean towards the child

The view for a long time has been a child is always better off with their family than in care

Most foster cares views are a child is always better of in care than with an abusive parent

I do not want legal aid going to parents who want to keep constantly challenging ss about their Childs care of whom will never be returned to them

My sw had to go to court recently because the parent was trying to assert her right not to allow her child whom is in care to go on holiday

Or ven the other way round ss having to take parents to court to gain rights they should have already because they have physical custody of a child

Who may I asked paid her legal bill legal aid or course