Skip to main content

Legal Aid

“Legal aid is a service which the modern state owes to its citizens as a matter of principal.  It is part of the protection of the citizen’s individuality which, in our modern conception of the relationship between the citizen and the State, can be claimed by those citizens who are too weak to protect themselves.  Just as the modern State tries to protect the poorer classes against the common dangers of life, such as unemployment, disease, old age, social oppression, etc., so it should protect them when legal difficulties arise.  Indeed, the case for such protection is stronger than the case for any other form of protection.  The State is not responsible for the outbreak of epidemics, for old age or economic crises.  But the State is responsible for the law.  That law again is made for the protection of all citizens, poor and rich alike.  It is therefore the duty of the State to make its machinery work alike, for the rich and the poor.”
Dr E. J. Cohn, Legal Aid for the Poor, 1941.

“For half a century the legal aid scheme enabled those without means to sue and defend themselves in the courts.  The scheme was not without faults: it led to the public financing of too many unmeritorious claims, and it bore hardly on privately funded defendants.  But its cost was its undoing.  In the years 1988 to 1996/7 expenditure on civil (and also criminal) legal aid was the fasted rising item of government expenditure overall.  So, perhaps ironically, it fell to the New Labour government to restrain access to civil legal aid, seeking to substitute conditional fee agreement and certain forms of insurance.  Despite determined efforts by Lord Woolf, to reduce the cost of civil litigation, and the introduction of admirable pro bono (gratuitous) scheme by solicitors and barristers, there must be concern that there now exists, once again, a large unmet need.”
Tom Bingham, Baron of Cornhill, former Senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, The Rule of Law, 2010

 The cost of legal aid has risen considerably since it was first introduced in Scotland in 1424 and in England 70-years later.  Even since the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949, which set up what we now recognise as our modern legal aid system, the costs have risen enormously.  It is true that some lawyers were (and still are) greedy - this is nothing peculiar to lawyers, it is a trait found in all walks of humanity.  Costs have risen for two main reasons: first, people have been encouraged by successive governments to view themselves as entitled to things and to stand up for themselves.  I don't suggest that this is a bad thing.  So, people who believe that they have a right to something and are now more likely than ever to take legal action to protect themselves.  Secondly, as the police become more efficient and have more resources at their fingertips so the rates of arrest and trial increase.  It is worth noting that in the 1930s the Met Police followed a policy of refusing to take reports of certain thefts and would instead record missing items as lost.  Also, it is worth noting that by the end of the last Labour government they had created more then 4,300 new criminal offences, according to the Times Online on the 14 March 2010.

We, as a society, have a choice that is similar to the choice facing us over health.  We can protect our health service and ensure that when we are ill it is there to help us.  We can protect legal aid and if we are falsely (or even correctly) accused of a crime or are injured by a negligent medic or run down by a car then when we find ourselves vulnerable there will  be somebody there to help us.  Or, we can simply follow the views of newspapers like the Daily Mail and say that everybody who gets legal aid is a scrounger and the lawyers are all greedy thieves and then when the finger of suspicion or blame points at us we can wake up and realise that there is nobody left to speak for us.


  1. As with the NHS, it it not necessarily the right idea to hand over a blank cheque and assume that the people spending the money will do so responsibly. While I entirely agree that legal aid should be generally accessible, just as health care should be, I am not at all convinced that the system as it existed before Labour sold out to its friends in big companies is the best way of achieving that - in either case.

    In other words, a plague on all their houses. The courageous thing to do would be to consider all aspects of the problem, not just how much money government is paying.

  2. There is a corollary to the legal aid argument and that is the continued refusal of some lawyers to follow the Criminal Procedure Rules and who insist that the prosecution be put to proof. This in my opinion is an act of desperation when there is little or no defence to the charge. When the defendant is an immigrant with little English and a poor understanding of our legal system it is not difficult for a lawyer to persuade him to stand firm. Having said that the costs incurred by the increased court usage time with unrepresented defendants must have an effect on the proposed cost saving as indicated by government. Certainly legal expenses cover will no doubt be heavily promoted by insurance companies except those most in need will be unable to afford it or even consider it. Whether a comparison with "free at the point of need" concept of NHS delivery can be utilised in regard to legal aid is a moot point.

  3. This reads too much as a plea to keep your income stream open.

    I'd be interested for you to argue as you normally do (ie against your own morale code) and then read it.

    There would be more valid points which would convince those who scream "shut it down"

  4. Anon, just for you I have written a new post all about one man's problems that I hope highlights why legal aid is so important.

    Incidentally, my sister has just taken up cab driving and seems to be earning more than me... tempted to follow her example!


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…