Legal Aid Post

So we’ve now seen an unprecedented joint protest by both solicitors and barristers, in respect to the further cuts to legal aid planed by the Justice Secretary Chris Grayling. The planned reduction in legal aid fees (of 30%) will save the government £220m and the only people who will have to suffer for it is everyone who doesn’t have the money to pay for both a barrister and solicitor. I don’t want to get into specific rates for trainees solicitors and junior barristers, but suffice to say, if you’re not well off, the amount it costs constitutes a shedload.

But that’s ok, if you need to pay for defence in a criminal case, you can just dip into your trust fund or ask for a loan from mummy and daddy – oh sorry I momentarily slipped into Mr Grayling’s frame of thought there.

These proposals are impossible to fathom; the saving is very obvious, but the clear interference with the Human Rights Act 1998 and by extension Article 6 the European Convention on Human Rights (which guarantees a fair trial) is just as clear.

The fact that this doesn’t seem to have even slowed the government down, shows a shift in their perception of the public at large. When they began, they didn’t care about the people of Britain, but needed us to think that they did. Now, they care so little about us that they’ll openly gut our human rights in front of us and not even attempt to even look as though they’re doing something beneficial.

So legal aid’s gone then…

Legal aid has disappeared as of a few days ago (yeah, I got caught up watching Doctor Who and wrote about that instead).

Ok, before I get into this, let’s talk about what legal aid is. In basic terms, if you can't pay for a legal proceeding and you’re substantially low and thus qualify, the state will assist you with funding a case. 

If you win or gain, you pay what’s called the statutory charge back to the state. The amount of the statutory charge will be the amount of money that the state provided you with to fund your claim and if you don’t pay it off in one payment, you get slapped with interest on top of any smaller payments you make.

The biggest “change” (as the government have been calling it) to legal aid is that it has been withdrawn from the area Family law, unless there is an allegation of violence.

Well that’s perfect, if there’s violence, people are still protected…or not…people who engage in domestic violence tend to be very good at hiding it and proving it is very difficult. So what are we going to do about those being abused who can’t prove it immediately? Is the level of proof required for violence in marriage going to have to go down?

Another side effect of this could be people who haven’t been subjected to violence, but still don’t have enough money to fund a claim in Family law. I have been repeatedly told by Solicitors and law lecturers alike to never underestimate how bitter people can become during family law matters. With this in mind would it be so incredible to assume that people would turn to falsely claiming violence or even harming themselves (so as to provide evidence) in order to get some money for a claim.

Regardless of this, the overriding question that springs to mind in this whole affair, is why the government cut a fund that gets paid back. If you win your case, you have to give back the money you take out of the system and if you don't pay it back straight away, you get charged interest; it earns money for the state.

The answer to this question is actually very simple. The government knows that the money comes back, they know this is a cut that won’t make the slightest bit of difference. But how many of their supporters know about the statutory charge? How many people can be convinced that this is a wholly necessary cut to national spending?

The loss of legal aid in Family Law is nothing more than one of many PR stunts by the Coalition government to appear as though it’s doing something to save the country’s economy. Anyone who agrees can feel free to add a “yay” in the comments. Here’s hoping that Doctor Who’s good tonight!