Should This Man Be Given Legal Aid?

[naomi24]

A Muslim terror fanatic banned from Britain for being a threat to national security has been given legal aid in a bid to win a UK passport.

Tory MP Douglas Carswell said: “Foreigners must think we are mad. We use taxpayers’ cash to allow people who want to defeat us on the battlefield fight us in our courts.” I agree with him.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/5015438/Fanatics-legal-aid-in-bid-for-passport.html#ixzz2ZHczgNwT

[friedgreentomato]

No he should not be given legal aid.

[emmie]

no he shouldn't, why should the taxpayers be asked to foot the bill, will he simply end up as another Abu Qatada, that would be stupid in the extreme.

[ummmm]

Absolutely not.

[sandyRoe]

"...stripped of British citizenship by the Home Secretary..."
Without legal aid who would help him fight his corner to try and determine if Theresa May had overstepped her powers?

[Old_Geezer]

Debatable. As a civilised society we should do whatever we can to ensure no one is denied legal access due to being too poor to get a fair hearing. But given the guy has been stripped of citizenship, and the country suely has a right to deny entry to whomever they feel is undesirable.... I think the real problem is less one of funding equitable treatment for all, and more that there could be a case to put together at all. The issue should surely be one of, the person in charge has barred you, go away.

[mikey4444]

Not on your Nelly !

[jake-the-peg]

This is exactly the sort of thing legal aid should be for.

The purpose of legal aid is to ensure equal or at least fair access to the law.

And without it people without the resources to challenge decisions against them are effectively under a dictatorship that can do what it likes without risk that those decisions could be challenged as unlawful.

Much as she or some here may dislike the ide Theresa May is still bound by the law and must act within it and not just how she sees fit

Do we even know if this man has been convicted of an offence?

[Boto]

Of course he shouldn't. The Commission should live in the real world and stop wasting our money.

[emmie]

not while ordinary citizens who have done nothing wrong are denied legal aid, if Ms May said he should be booted out, why hasn't he been

[sandyRoe]

There's no knowing that this man has done anything wrong.

[Sqad]

I understood that legal aid was only for British citizens and he, at this moment is not.

No, he shouldn't be allowed to avail himself of tax payers money.

However, the UK is a compassionate society.

[emmie]

why can;t he be named then, for legal reasons....?

[LazyGun]

I will reserve judgement until we see a few more details, I think.

In general though - I do think if you are stripped of British Nationality, then the reasons why you have had that citizenship removed should be tested in a court of law.

[B00]

If he dislikes this country that much, why does he want a passport for it?

[jake-the-peg]

That is quite an interesting and ironic point sqad!

[tonyav]

That seem's to be the norm though, B00.

[naomi24]

B00, good question. There seem to be a lot around like that.

[emmie]

its what i always wonder, if you hate a place, why would you stay...

[ichkeria]

The report seems a little confused. Having citizenship and obtaining a passport are not the same thing. Just because you have British citizenship doesn't entitle you automatically to a passport, odd as it may seem.

Be that as it may, I agree with Jake in principle: legal aid should be for appealing against seemingly arbitrary decisions like the one mentioned, even if in this instance it may seem daft.
I love the added: "It comes after hate preacher Abu Qatada was finally kicked out of Britain. " (!) Apart from that, no other details are given: no name, no details of why this happened. It's simply trial by the Sun - and Answerbank - again, without all the facts.

[meglet]

I fail to see how it can be right for any non-British citizen to get legal aid, irrespective of the reason. It's indefensible.