Save legal aid to protect access to justice for all

DonDaddyD

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/d ... ce-for-all

I'm not the expert of this but last year I posted a thread a about legal aid being cut from family courts. So if you and your partner/wife split up and she stops you visiting the kids or you want custody, you won't get legal aid to help fight your case, unless there is a risk to the children (like domestic violence). This means you have to either pay for a lawyer (the costs can be enormous) or you have to go through the court process yourself, without professional advice or expertise. Needless to say the family courts are jammed with people trying seek justice without support.

So now they want to extend this to the criminal courts as well, that you could be taken to court for a criminal and have no legal representation because you cannot afford it is a frightening thing.

rjsterry

Have you got any links to further information? I'm not convinced that change.org achieves that much, and some of the requests for support I've received have been a little light on evidence to back up their claims.

DonDaddyD

Loads of stuff on Goole: Proposed changes to legal aids. Changes to legal aid criminal cases.

Law Society: http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/representa ... legal-aid/

This summarises it a bit: http://www.grayandcosolicitors.co.uk/bl ... d-changes/

http://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/images ... h_2011.pdf

rjsterry

Hmmm, I'm seeing some parallels with the trashing of the BSF (Building Schools for the Future) programme by Gove, particularly the scapegoating of involved professionals by portraying them as growing fat on the proceeds of public expenditure.

This sentence was particularly worrying: Chris Grayling said that "Those who live outside the law should pay the consequences both through being punished and bearing more of the costs they impose on society." I'd assumed that one applies for legal aid before the judgement is made on whether one is or is not a criminal. Would that mean that judges would then be awarding costs against convicted defendants in a similar way to civil cases? I'd have thought in a large number of cases, the convicted would be unlikely to be able to pay such costs.

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

Hmmm, I'm seeing some parallels with the trashing of the BSF (Building Schools for the Future) programme by Gove, particularly the scapegoating of involved professionals by portraying them as growing fat on the proceeds of public expenditure.

This sentence was particularly worrying: Chris Grayling said that "Those who live outside the law should pay the consequences both through being punished and bearing more of the costs they impose on society." I'd assumed that one applies for legal aid before the judgement is made on whether one is or is not a criminal. Would that mean that judges would then be awarding costs against convicted defendants in a similar way to civil cases? I'd have thought in a large number of cases, the convicted would be unlikely to be able to pay such costs.

In a word yes.

Also, you aren't able to choose who represents you legally. If you are eligible for legal aid you will be assigned a legal aid lawyer. These lawyers will be selected by the Government based on who can provide the cheapest service.

rjsterry

Oh goody! Coz cheaper is always better, right?

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

Oh goody! Coz cheaper is always better, right?

Exactly. I think we need a general election before the Tories go too far.

Also (shark jump) this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25660555

tailwindhome

Maybe if squabbling couples didn't have their squabbling subsidised they would be less inclined to squabble.

rjsterry

A bit simplistic don't you think, TWH?

First.Aspect

Joshua Rosenburg did a podcast late last year with a good analysis of this issue. He made a pretty good case for the overall costs to go up since, as DDD points out, having courts filled with people representing themselves slows down the entire process for everyone.

The government seems to have consulted, ignored the overwhealming contrary arguments and done what they'd decided to to do anyway, safe in the knowledge that they'd consulted on the issue.

This is another "let them eat cake" policy from a bunch of rich career politicians who simply cannot understand how it is not to have money, since they were born rich. The only reason this policiy, above all their other policies which beat up on people who won't vote or won't vote for them anyway, is at all in the public consciousness is because it has an impact on some eloquent barristers.

The Rookie

If one partner works they don't (usually) get legal aid anyway (you don't have to earn much before you get no help), but the non working one does, this has been by far the bigger issue in most split ups that I know, the wife keeps dragging it back to court as it costs her nothing (on legal aid) while the husband gets fleeced by the solicitor, this at least creates equality of arms, for that reason it's a no from me!

DonDaddyD

First Aspect wrote:

The only reason this policiy, above all their other policies which beat up on people who won't vote or won't vote for them anyway, is at all in the public consciousness is because it has an impact on some eloquent barristers.

I agree with everything else in your post, but believe that this policy hasn't gathered as much coverage as it deserves. In fact I thought the cuts to legal aid in family cases should have had more coverage long before the policy got to this stage. Think about the air time, housing, disability, job seekers benefits get compared to this.

The Rookie wrote:

If one partner works they don't (usually) get legal aid anyway (you don't have to earn much before you get no help), but the non working one does, this has been by far the bigger issue in most split ups that I know, the wife keeps dragging it back to court as it costs her nothing (on legal aid) while the husband gets fleeced by the solicitor, this at least creates equality of arms, for that reason it's a no from me!

My understanding is that the wife has to claim that there is domestic violence to get legal aid. I will get Ms DDD to confirm the previous criteria, but she has had a ton of working male clients so I'm not sure that what you've written is entirely accurate.

The Rookie

DonDaddyD wrote:

The Rookie wrote:

If one partner works they don't (usually) get legal aid anyway (you don't have to earn much before you get no help), but the non working one does, this has been by far the bigger issue in most split ups that I know, the wife keeps dragging it back to court as it costs her nothing (on legal aid) while the husband gets fleeced by the solicitor, this at least creates equality of arms, for that reason it's a no from me!

My understanding is that the wife has to claim that there is domestic violence to get legal aid. I will get Ms DDD to confirm the previous criteria, but she has had a ton of working male clients so I'm not sure that what you've written is entirely accurate.

In the two case I know of, they were somewhat acrimonious splits, in both case the wives claimed violence had happened (whether this was a pre-requisite for LA or not I don't know), nothing proveable either way (couldn't prove it had happened, husband couldn't prove it hadn't which would always be pretty much impossible) and they got aid.....simples.

Funny thing was, in one case the ex-wife started working and lost qualification, they went back to court again and she started bleating that could they not do it as solicitors were costing her money now, needless to say that the ex-husband, having paid for solicitors for about 40 hearings, wasn't overly sympathetic!

Nothing personal intended, but I know of more than a few cases where solicitors seemed to be doing all they could to drag it out to increase their payout from it.

DonDaddyD

The Rookie wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

The Rookie wrote:

If one partner works they don't (usually) get legal aid anyway (you don't have to earn much before you get no help), but the non working one does, this has been by far the bigger issue in most split ups that I know, the wife keeps dragging it back to court as it costs her nothing (on legal aid) while the husband gets fleeced by the solicitor, this at least creates equality of arms, for that reason it's a no from me!

My understanding is that the wife has to claim that there is domestic violence to get legal aid. I will get Ms DDD to confirm the previous criteria, but she has had a ton of working male clients so I'm not sure that what you've written is entirely accurate.

In the two case I know of, they were somewhat acrimonious splits, in both case the wives claimed violence had happened (whether this was a pre-requisite for LA or not I don't know), nothing proveable either way (couldn't prove it had happened, husband couldn't prove it hadn't which would always be pretty much impossible) and they got aid.....simples.

Funny thing was, in one case the ex-wife started working and lost qualification, they went back to court again and she started bleating that could they not do it as solicitors were costing her money now, needless to say that the ex-husband, having paid for solicitors for about 40 hearings, wasn't overly sympathetic!

Nothing personal intended, but I know of more than a few cases where solicitors seemed to be doing all they could to drag it out to increase their payout from it.

I'm not advocating bad practice of some solicitors, where they are paid the hearings not the case. But what is being proposed here doesn't really resolve that issue, it compounds on it.

A criminal case is bought against you. If you cannot afford to pay (we haven't even determined affordability, I earn £6 grand less these days but have more disposable income for example) you are given a lawyer based on who can provide the cheapest service (that isn't a good thing). If you are assessed as being able to afford payments, you either pay private, where pumping up the costs is often an assumed practice, or you represent yourself. This is in the criminal courts, where you could get a prison sentence. What happened to the law and judicial process being there to protect the innocent including the wrongfully accussed?

If the parents spilt and the Mum doesn't want the Dad to have access (you can paint the Mum or Dad with any brush, crack head, prostittute, terrorist zealot) then they aren't eligible for legal aid.

I'm not seeing how the innocent man in the criminal case, or the child is being put first with these policies.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Legal aid lawyers to my understanding get paid for the case. If Social Services are involved then the parents are eligible for legal aid. If the child is at risk of harm or there is a case of domestic violence then the parents are eligible for legal aid. WRT. Domestic Violence, they changed the bit so that both the man and woman get legal aid if there is suspected domestic violence - but this has to be proven/confirmed before legal aid is given. (I am to understand)

gooner-at-law

Signed. In fact should be signed by more people.

Some of the cuts proposed and those that have already been introduced by Statutory Instrument are a damning indictment of this Govt in relation to its farcical approach to legal aid, justice per se and taxation on top end earners. The trend seems to favour the rich and squeezes those marginalised.

When advice is limited, frequently, injustice (due to unchecked accountability) creeps in. Whilst most of this will not affect many on here, it does not take much for you to land in a situation where accurate, timely and good legal advice is required. It is a wickedness to think that when this happens eligibility and money becomes the factor most pressing.

CiB

Why don't we have a sticky simply titled Tory B*sterds and then whenever you get the urge for a some relief you can pop in there for a read or maybe a self-congratulatory post to get your kicks? Win-win surely? You all have some quiet corner to agree how awful they are, and we don't inadvertently have to read it to see what's going on this week in somebody's world.

HTH. :!:

DonDaddyD

CiB wrote:

Why don't we have a sticky simply titled Tory B*sterds and then whenever you get the urge for a some relief you can pop in there for a read or maybe a self-congratulatory post to get your kicks? Win-win surely? You all have some quiet corner to agree how awful they are, and we don't inadvertently have to read it to see what's going on this week in somebody's world.

HTH. :!:

You know ages ago, I took a step back and decided to read ('likely really read so I could feel what ya say'n bruv') the stuff you wrote and a lot of it made sense to the extent of being a point of principle with which people should set their lives around. The above, however, is not the case.

You once said that in this Country we have a support system (benefits) to catch people should they fall on hard times. The system, any system, has to be robust enough to withstand abuse, while those managing the system must do their level best to protect it from and prevent abuse.

Legal aid is one such system and whether it is the Tories, Labour, Lib Dems or UKIP making this suggestion, what is being proposed is wrong, IMO. I think it goes beyond party politics, this is about the kind of society we live in and want to live in. Just like Labour making the societal landscape a free for all for those that didn't work - that was wrong too.

rjsterry

And arguably, you could put some of the blame at Labour's feet as they introduced the idea of an overall cap on Legal Aid back in 1999. They were rather happy to add to the statute books as well, but that's another topic. And the Lib Dems seem to be letting this slide as well.

The Rookie

DonDaddyD wrote:

A criminal case is bought against you. If you cannot afford to pay (we haven't even determined affordability, I earn £6 grand less these days but have more disposable income for example) you are given a lawyer based on who can provide the cheapest service (that isn't a good thing).

You're in cuckoo land, very few criminal cases qualify for legal aid, only those where a prison sentence is possible (so only about 10% in a magistrates court), next time you want me to sign something, please go away and understand what it is you are asking for first please! You're almost as bad as the Daily Fail.

DonDaddyD

The Rookie wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

A criminal case is bought against you. If you cannot afford to pay (we haven't even determined affordability, I earn £6 grand less these days but have more disposable income for example) you are given a lawyer based on who can provide the cheapest service (that isn't a good thing).

You're in cuckoo land, very few criminal cases qualify for legal aid, only those where a prison sentence is possible (so only about 10% in a magistrates court), next time you want me to sign something, please go away and understand what it is you are asking for first please! You're almost as bad as the Daily Fail.

Why the abuse?

The Rookie

Because you asked us to sign something, it would seem sensible that you actually KNOW what you are asking us to sign and what it really means, I wouldn't post up a link asking for it to be made legal for people to shoot DonDaddyDee's once a year without realising it could kill you.

I do realise you have a certain reputation to keep up in terms of shooting from the hip, but sometimes it is best to check your aim first.

DonDaddyD

The Rookie wrote:

Because you asked us to sign something,

So instead of contributing to the discussion in a constructive manner, informing and clarifying in a productive and enlightening way and maybe even demonstrating your superior knowledge on the subject, you decide to go all 'Internet Warlord' with the insults.

My 'reputation' seems to be more important to you than it does me, and perhaps the perception of which has made you act an ass in this thread.

So let me ask you this, if this conversation was happening in the pub, say, Morpeth Arms, would you interrupt the conversation and be so insulting to me in person. Of course, on here, you are going to say yes. I, however, can assure you that in person you wouldn't. And even if you think you would, no, you really wouldn't or at the very least you would never do so ever again.

Advice from a seasoned internet forum professional (seeing as that sort of thing matters to you). Attack the conversation not the man.

DonDaddyD

Now that that unpleasentness is behind me:

"very few criminal cases qualify for legal aid, only those where a prison sentence is possible (so only about 10% in a magistrates court)”

Even if this is true, and I'm not sure it is, I would still sign the petition because of those supposed 10%, those who once were eligible for legal aid in criminal cases would no longer be and if they were they would be given a lawyer who provides the cheapest service and that isn't a good thing. People think criminal cases with the very worst of society, but don't realise how close, or how one mistake could see us end up with a criminal record and jail sentence. If that ever came my way I would want a lawyer who measures themself on their skill in the litigation arena and not how cheaply they can get the job done.

https://www.gov.uk/check-legal-aid
A police custody officer will help you get legal aid if you’ve been arrested and held at a police station. A solicitor will check if you qualify for legal aid if you’re charged with a crime or have to go to court.

You’ll get legal aid automatically if you’re under 16 (or under 18 and in full-time education) or on certain benefits.

I'm searching for the eligibility criteria that a solicitor would use. You may well be right and that, believe it or not is fine.