Why should Asil Nadir get £5m legal aid?

[pdq1]

He is obviously still a rich man as he has been living in Mayfair and has an expensive Jag. Should transfer of assets to family members be allowed when a person claiming benefits has to include them?

This legal aid claim is not new and happened some years ago with the Maxwell brothers.

What can be done to stop this abuse of taxpayers money?

[joeluke]

He shouldn't

An overhaul of the rules on legal aid is badly needed

[emmie]

he shouldn't, another balls up over who gets legal aid.

[FredPuli43]

In serious, complex, and lengthy cases Legal Aid is granted. If Nadir had defended himself, the trial would undoubtedly have been longer and there was the strong possibility that he would, by accident or design, cause the whole trial to be aborted and a retrial ordered, both at great and unnecessary expense to the public purse.

Assuming he had the vast funds available, from whatever source, to pay privately for his defence,and did so, these costs would be much higher than for a defence funded by Legal Aid.

Now, if the defendant is convicted he may be ordered to pay the prosecution costs. He may also have to reimburse the Legal Aid fund, depending on what means he has. If he is acquitted, he gets an order for his defence costs to be paid from the public purse.These will be high if he was privately defended. If he was legally aided and acquitted , the defence costs would be born by the public anyway.

So there is some logic in it all.

[sir.prize]

Would there also be some logic in this?

Abu Qatada's legal battle to stay in Britain, the country he professes to hate, has cost the British taxpayer £3m.