Post by nickd on Mar 23, 2012 9:33:41 GMT 1
The Bar Council has spoken out ; - they do not think it is right that wealthy individuals can get legal aid
"In our view, it is nothing short of scandalous that wealthy defendants continue to receive legal aid, often for lengthy, complex and costly cases, at a time when the justice budget is under such strain."
"At present, criminal defendants are unable to access these funds, so legal aid has to fund their defence to the criminal charges. An order may, however, be made for the funds to be unfrozen to pay their children’s private school fees."
I have long held a view that legal aid is there to protect those of limited means. I cannot see how it is right that we are allowing people of wealth to be legally aided at the tax payer's expense if they can afford to fund their own case. The legal aid system is built on a means- testing of an individual's ability to contribute towards their legal costs. The Bar Council is in my view absolutely right to argue that legal aid should not fund a defendant's legal costs if the funds could be otherwise accessed by unlocking the defendant's means to pay.
Why is it of greater importance for the defendant to be able to pay private school fees than legal fees which would take the strain off the £1 billion pound criminal legal aid bill?
The strain could be taken off the legal aid bill by accepting the Bar Council's argument that restraint should be lifted to meet legal costs; - it is not morally right to be providing legal aid to people who have the money but are unable to access it because of a restraint order. If the restraint can be lifted to pay private school fees, then it can and should be lifted to pay for legal fees.
Perhaps then we could avoid scenes like this...
Wealthy businessman Asil Nadir gets legal aid to fund his case.
Asil Nadir, the former Polly Peck tycoon, has been granted legal aid to fight the multimillion-pound theft charges he spent 17 years running from, a decision likely to leave taxpayers with a substantial bill.
The businessman, whose trial is due to begin in January, is expected to make a "substantial" contribution to his court costs but was granted assistance after an assessment of his finances, the Legal Services Commission said.
The former billionaire faces 13 counts of false accounting for allegedly plundering his FTSE 100-listed Polly Peck empire, which collapsed in 1990 with debts of more than £1.3bn, wiping out the savings and pensions of tens of thousands of investors.
Nadir was arrested shortly after the collapse but fled Britain for Turkish-occupied northern Cyprus in 1993 after being charged with 66 counts of theft totalling £150m, later reduced to £34m. He was arrested after returning to Britain in August last year.
Read more here www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jun/08/asil-nadir-trial-legal-aid
Nadir's trial will run into millions of pounds. He made a conscious decision when he fled the UK 17 years ago, he has had every opportunity to return and plead his innocence before now. Nadir was due to stand trial in 1993 but he left the country and remained in Northern Cyprus until he was rearrested in August 2010. His trial started at the Old Bailey this year, you can read the time line here..
www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jan/23/asil-nadir-polly-peck-timeline?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
Is it right that we grant legal aid for wealthy tycoons who continue to lead lavish lifestyles?
"Runaway tycoon Asil Nadir returned to a VIP-style reception yesterday, insisting there had been no ‘deal’.
He slipped instantly into the gilded lifestyle he left behind when he fled Britain in the face of £34million theft charges. Not a single detective was on hand to arrest him when he touched down at Luton airport on a flight from his native Northern Cyprus, nor did he have to suffer the indignity of going through passport control.
Happy to be back: Asil Nadir and his wife Nur leave his house in Mayfair in London today after flying back to Britain from Northern Cyprus to try and clear his name in court. Instead, beaming and sporting a dapper silk handkerchief in his top pocket, the 69-year-old was given a police escort as he was chauffeur-driven to a £20,000-a-month rented Mayfair house. He will now effectively be allowed the freedom of London in advance of his long-awaited appearance before an Old Bailey judge next week.
The spectacle of Mr Nadir’s return to Britain opens another controversial chapter in the story of the rags-to-riches entrepreneur who built one of Britain’s top companies during the Thatcher years, only to see £165million wiped off his personal fortune at a stroke when a police raid on his Polly Peck headquarters in London sparked a spectacular crash.
Three years later, just as charges were about to be brought, he fled to Northern Cyprus and retreated to the gated security of his £3million home there."
Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1306249/Polly-Peck-tycoon-Asil-Nadir-flies-UK-17-years-run-34m-fraud.html#ixzz1q3DaOyBz
The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) does not have to make cuts in social welfare legal aid - there are alternative ways of finding the money and recouping losses in the MOJ budget elsewhere.
The Ministry of Justice is currently telling us all that £350 million pounds worth of cuts have to be made from the civil/criminal legal aid budget. In total around £2.1 billion is spent on legal aid, in excess of 50% goes on criminal cases; - this will remain almost untouched.
The biggest casualty will be the advice sector which faces by far the biggest impact if these cuts are made; our slice of the budget is around £100 million pounds. This predominantly funds CAB and law centres to provide advice essential 'social welfare' legal aid on complicated enquiries involving welfare benefits, debt and housing. The House of Lords recently voted against some of these cuts by making some welcome amendments to the Legal aid, sentencing & punishment of offender's bill (LASPO) but the risk is the government will try and overturn these in the House of Commons on the grounds of 'financial privilege'. The Government believes it has the right to say these cuts to the legal aid budget are essential in order to reduce the Nations's deficit.
There are other ways in which government could make financial savings and thus avoid having to make any cuts from our already low £100 million budget. This would help save many advice centres and CAB from closure; - many agencies have already had to stop providing services, some areas of social welfare advice are being cut by 100%. If government gets its way you will not be able to get any legal aid funded help if you have a welfare benefit problem. In the recent treasury budget, the government has offered us a sticking plaster in the form of a '£20 million sweetener' - it is no where near enough to provide the service which we currently provide. Our current budget is on a shoestring, yet it funds thousands of cases at a fixed fee of as little as £150 per case. To cut it by 80% does not make any sense in times likes these when we are being inundated with enquiries.
live.barcouncil.netxtra.net/media/131011/bar_council_briefing_for_peers_for_the_third_reading_of_laspo.pdf
www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2012-03-22a.101404.h