Fair Access To The Law

[sunny-dave]

It seems to me that we have moved into a ridiculous situation where only the very rich or the very poor have fair access to the law - both in civil and criminal cases.

[ the latest case is being discussed here http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1328874.html ]

As a member of the 'squeezed middle', I can't see that I could ever afford to risk starting a civil action - however robust my case - because if I was to lose I could be crippled by the other side's costs.

Similarly I can't see how I could properly defend myself in a criminal case, however unjust the accusation, knowing that (even if I was found Not Guilty) I'd have to pay all my own legal costs.

It just seems utterly wrong that only the plutocrats or the indigent will get a fair crack of the legal whip?

[wolf63]

You are just going to have to stay out of trouble.

I think what many people forget that is within seconds you could go from a normal law abiding person to a (potential) criminal. You could thump someone in self defence and kill them etc

[Psybbo]

Barmaid's going to be busy!

[Svejk]

you're being disingenuous, dave. you'd receive exactly the same access to legal aid as poor people and rich people. you'd only have to pay for any 'extra' legal services you may choose to avail yourself of.

[sunny-dave]

Not True - legal aid is means tested and virtually impossible for a house-owner to get.

[cazzz1975]

Hasn't legal aid been scrapped?, meaning the very poor would not have "fair access" to the law.

[sunny-dave]

https://www.gov.uk/legal-aid/eligibility

[Svejk]

I'm talking about criminal cases like the one you linked to in the op. I cant see why anyone should get legal aid for civil cases, can you?

[DrFilth]

what we need is all the legal people to be put on the minimum wage and this would make the system much fairer to all

[sunny-dave]

Wrong Svejk - Legal Aid for criminal cases is means tested - and very harshly now - any assets like a house & you are ineligible, beyond the very quick 'solicitor in a police station' consultation.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/legal-aid/assess-your-clients-eligibility/crime-eligibility/criminal-eligibility-calculator

[Svejk]

as I said, if you choose to avail yourself of 'extra' legal services you will be expected to pay. Even wealthy men like Evans get reimbursed up to legal aid rates. if you choose to avail yourself of 'high-powered' barristers why should I pay for them?

[sunny-dave]

We are at cross purposes - I am referring to legal aid which will enable me to defend myself without paying out of my own pocket.

You are referring to the fact that (if I am acquitted) I can *apply* for 'costs' to be refunded to me. There is no guarantee that this application will be granted, or at what level (if any) payment may be made.

[Svejk]

having said that, I believe some scrotes take cases to the crown court with barristers and suchlike at the publics expense because they qualify for 'extra' legal aid.I think we should stop that, too.

[Svejk]

as wolf says, dave. either start going straight or make sure you don't get caught. ;-)

[sunny-dave]

Civil cases worry me a lot - I would never start one (I'm not daft), but if one is started against me then, even if I win, I have to pay my own costs.

This seems wrong - and would be a huge disincentive to defend myself rather than agreeing to some sort of 'out of court settlement' even if I knew in my heart that I was in the right.

The rich (or indigent) have no such pressures in either starting or defending a civil case.

[sunny-dave]

I am as pure as the driven slush, sweaty - all this is a hypothetical bee in my hypothetical bonnet :)

[EDDIE51]

A collage lecturer once said to me '' The Law ,like the Ritz Hotel, is open to all''
Never was a truer word spoken.

[ummmm]

DrFilth, are you serious?

[hc4361]

You don't have t do anything wrong to be falsely accused of a crime, so 'keeping out of trouble' may not keep you out of the dock.

With the new caps on legal aid it is increasingly difficult to get a solicitor and barrister to take on legal aid work, especially in complex cases and if the CPS is using senior treasury QCs to prosecute as in the Nigel Evans case then it is only fair that the defendant should have the same quality of defence.

[sunny-dave]

I agree entirely, hc - whatever quality of lawyer is used by the prosecution should also be funded for the defence, if/when the defendant is acquitted.

[Svejk]

maybe I'm not explaining my thoughts very clearly. I think its fair to say we have a 2 tier legal system at present. however, if we reimburse wealthy/wealthier defendants on acquittal we'll have a situation where poor bleeders like me will be subsidising legal costs to which we have no access. the only people who have access will be those that can 'front' the money up. Lets take the footballers who used Mr Loophole to hang on to their driving licences. How would you feel about reimbursing them?