Let’s get one thing clear. People who have the benefit of
legal aid are not given a hand-out. They are not ‘given’ anything. The purpose
of legal aid is, or was, to ensure that each party to a dispute have equal
access to legal representation. Legal Aid, as we know it, was introduced in
1949 by the post war Labour government. Its stated purpose at the time was –
“to provide
legal advice for those of slender means and resources, so that no one would be
financially unable to prosecute a just and reasonable claim or defend a legal
right; and to allow counsel and solicitors to be remunerated for their
services”.
It is fair to
say that this principle has been eroded over the years. Eligibility for Legal
aid has been virtually wiped out for many citizens since 2013 under the
Conservative and Liberal Democrat Coalition. But the principle remains. For
example, it was recently reported that in 2017 the Government had spent £4.2m on
legal representation at inquests. At the same time just £92k was paid to
families of victims by way of legal aid. Most people would agree that this is iniquitous.
The state
provides legal aid so that all sides can have equal access to justice regardless of
their wealth. What is the point of having legal rights if only the rich can
access them?
And so to 19
year old Shamina Begum. It has been national news today,that she has been granted
legal aid to contest the removal of her citizenship. It is very predictable
that the Daily Mail has reported this as if it is some sort of hand-out. The
rest of the media seems to have followed suit. Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, is reported to be 'uncomfortable' with the decision to give her legal aid. That is the thing about justice. It isn't always comfortable. Comfort is not what it is about.
This is not
about her popularity. Access to Justice is not limited to those of whom we
approve. It is possible to despise her and all that she stands for, and at the
same time, acknowledge that there are important issues here that should be
addressed by a court. This is an issue which should be a concern for us all. When, and under what circumstances, can out government remove person's citizenship? This is a matter for judges, not the media, to decide.
Her citizenship has been removed by the state. The state is required to show that it has acted lawfully. That can only be achieved if Ms Begum and the state are equally represented. This is why we have scales of justice.
Her citizenship has been removed by the state. The state is required to show that it has acted lawfully. That can only be achieved if Ms Begum and the state are equally represented. This is why we have scales of justice.
The test is
this –
Does she
require legal assistance? She does.
Can she afford
it? Probably not but that is a statutory test, and a strict one at that.
Is the
necessary work in scope? It is.
There is no requirement that a person be popular or to be considered deserving of help by the tabloid press. Justice is not a bag of money, it is a right.
There is no requirement that a person be popular or to be considered deserving of help by the tabloid press. Justice is not a bag of money, it is a right.
