The Independent is reporting that Nigel Evans, a British MP recently cleared of sexual assault charges, has said he regretted previously supporting cuts to legal aid.
He said he was stunned to learn he would have to pay his legal fees even if he was acquitted plus value added tax.
Tough new rules on the amount of cash acquitted defendants could claim back were passed in 2011 as the Ministry of Justice sought to trim the legal aid budget.
Bill Waddington, the chairman of the Criminal Law Solicitors' Association, said: "It is interesting it takes something like this for MPs to realise that only two years ago they actually voted for this change against vociferous opposition from the legal community."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
British MP Regrets Supporting Legal Aid Cuts
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 14 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hamsterdan on Tuesday April 15 2014, @08:34PM
Funny how when it impacts them those making the laws come down to earth.
As one of my friends said last week, pay those in charge minimum salary and things will be *very* different for us common people...
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 15 2014, @08:40PM
Dear Linux Advocate,
Defending yourself against false charges is a tiring and expensive process. As you know, though, money doesn't grow on trees. And, Linux Advocates is growing. Naturally, we anticipate operating costs and hope to be able to meet them.
But, any amount you feel you are able to donate in support of our ongoing work will be most surely appreciated and put to very good use. Your contributions keep Linux Advocates growing.
Show your support by making a donation today.
Thank you.
Dieter T. Schmitz
Linux Advocates, Owner
http://www.linuxadvocates.com/p/support.html [linuxadvocates.com]
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 15 2014, @08:50PM
Why do I post here? I guess it was the weather, or the, I don't know that thing, that strolling.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Tuesday April 15 2014, @09:07PM
It's all "Us versus them". That perception poisons good ideas by some people being able to portray them as being used by "the bad guys". If you don't personally know someone dependent on a service, the idea begins to be tied only to "those people" who are allaged use it.
It happens in all sides of politics(because simplistic people are everywhere), but it's particularly symptomatic of right-wing-authoritarianism. And as far as I can tell, it's just one of those untreatable conditions of democracy, and all you can do is not give into it yourself.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by geb on Tuesday April 15 2014, @09:22PM
After being (falsely) accused of rape, he has suddenly come out all in favour of anonymity for those accused of sexual crimes too. It's not a topic that chimes well with the rest of the party, who like to be tough on crime by being tough on criminals.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by velex on Wednesday April 16 2014, @01:01AM
Not only that, but how dare anyone even suggest that a woman might lie about something like rape! What kind of woman hating misogynist... objectifier!... would dare suggest such a thing! /s
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 16 2014, @06:40AM
Sorry to spoil a fun game of conclusion jumping, but the MP in question here is gay, and the person who accused him of rape is male. Misogynism doesn't come into it anywhere.
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Thursday April 17 2014, @11:13AM
Even so the media has tried to spin it as a female MP encouraged those men to come forward and complain. They will always find some way to blame women for rape.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 1) by tomtomtom on Wednesday April 16 2014, @09:05AM
It's not just the rest of the Tory party. Most of the rest of the country wants to be tough on crime by being tough on criminals... in the abstract. But if you show them most of what goes through the criminal justice system in the specific (low-level drug crime, for example) they are likely to be significantly more lenient. "Crime" in people's minds means violent and sexual crime, but the criminal justice system ends up tarring everyone involved in it with the same brush.
That's how we end up with some quite unjust parts of the system like the Proceeds of Crime Act (under which assets can be confiscated or frozen even if you are not convicted of a crime, including assets which you might otherwise need to use to pay for your defence or appeals), strict liability crimes and so on.
Anonymity for defendants is an odd issue. I suspect the majority of the country support it actually. The people who are against it vociferously fall into two groups: (1) those who believe the principle of open justice should trump everything (including much of the legal profession, still heavily represented in parliament); and (2) victims' groups who believe that if defendants are publicly named then "more victims might come forward".
Personally I think this second argument is weak. Lifting anonymity upon conviction would mean the same result would happen. In addition, each case ought to stand on its own merits; past behaviour is at most an indicator of intent, but then it would need to be proved as well so those cases ought to also be tried. Victims groups then say "but what if the accused is not convicted - he might get off on a technicality" - which makes the assumption that accusation is the same as guilt, which is totally counter to any idea of justice.
The problem is that victims are NOT on the whole fair-minded - they are far too likely to want justice for the sake of retribution instead of restitution, protection or deterrence; in my mind retribution should play at most a very limited part in a sane criminal justice system (the reason it's not "no part" is because justice must be SEEN to be done).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 15 2014, @09:33PM
Not down to Earth enough to file a civil claim for costs and formal complaint to the police in regard to his accuser:
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 15 2014, @10:03PM
There's a long way between a convictable offence for the accused rapist and a convictable offence for the accuser. Many things such ranging from "he was bloody guilty but we couldn't prove it" thorugh "misunderstanding" and "mistaken identity" up to "has a bit strange ideas about how men should treat her" or "regretted it in the morning" ending up with "deliberately fitted him up".
It's completely possible for both him and her to be completely innocent of anything other than stupidity.
The case against her has to be proven just as the case against him had to be proven. Let's wait to see what happens before we pre-judge.
(Score: 1) by arslan on Tuesday April 15 2014, @10:39PM
Yes, it will be worse. Which one do you think is easier, resorting to corruption or championing the masses against the lobbyist and big corpos? The path of least resistance mate..
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 16 2014, @12:15PM
Depends on what you mean by minimum salary. If you mean salary and not income from whatever sources then a high minimum salary won't help the jobless.
How about pay politicians 12 times what the poorest 1% get on average - whether they are jobless or not? Seems fair enough to me. I don't wish the people leading my country to live like the poorest, and if being 12 times richer than the poorest 1% is not enough then imagine how the poor are suffering.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by tomtomtom on Wednesday April 16 2014, @09:10AM
This is a classic example of assuming that all cases are undeserving cases because those are the only ones you hear about. A few high profile undeserving cases of legal aid (immigration cases involving criminals who try to avoid being deported to foreign countries where they might face torture/abuse are great for this in some people's minds) and some seemingly high payouts by the state for costs led many MPs to engage in lazy thinking about who was actually using legal aid and what for.
This is what having career politicians (which Nigel Evans is) gets us, unfortunately.