SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
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This discussion has been archived.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.
U: There's a U -- a Unicorn!
Run right up and rub its horn.
Look at all those points you're losing!
UMBER HULKS are so confusing.
-- The Roguelet's ABC
(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).