Inquests, Legal Aid and time for change - now!

The lack of availability of legal aid for Inquests is in the news again. We have already had the controversy of the refusal of legal aid for the family of Molly Russell whose death was thought to be linked to Social Media. This decision was eventually reversed by the Legal Aid Agency after wide criticism –

https://thestevecornforthblog.blogspot.com/2019/03/molly-russell-instagram-and-legal-aid.html

In August 2019 there was a further outcry when families of the Manchester Bombing victims faced a similar struggle –

 https://thestevecornforthblog.blogspot.com/2019/08/legal-aid-hashem-abedi-and.html

Now the families of victims of the 1974 Guildford Bombings have been refused Legal Aid for representation at fresh inquests. This incident led to one of our most shameful miscarriages of justice when the Guildford Four and the Maguire Seven were wrongly convicted and spent up to 16 years in prison. In the meantime, the families of the victims still wait to find out the truth.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49484921

To most people this is a case where the availability of legal aid should be beyond debate. The public bodies involved will have full representation paid for by the state. As things stand, the families will have none – unless they can pay for it, or their lawyers continue to act for nothing. 

This is due to the very restrictive rules on legal aid for inquests. There is no entitlement as such. Funding is available in ‘exceptional circumstances’. There must be a wider public interest, not in the inquest itself but in the family being represented. These are going to be long and complex inquests with significant and expensive legal representation by some of our top QCs. It is clearly in the wider public interests that the families of those who lost their lives have the same representation as the police and the MOD. Why should they be left to fend for themselves?

In this case the Coroner himself has written to Legal Aid Agency but there is no guarantee that this will make a difference. The time has surely come for a change in the rules. The charity, INQUEST has longed campaigned for a right to full, non means tested legal aid for families at inquests involving deaths that are ‘state related.’ They say on their website –

‘Without funded representation, families are denied their voice and meaningful participation in the processes of investigation, learning and accountability. This inequality of arms is an unacceptable curtailing of justice, undermining the preventative potential of inquests, to interrogate the facts and ensure harmful practices are brought to light. Inquests following state related deaths are intended to seek the truth, to expose unsafe practices and abuses of state power. But the reality faced by most families is of multiple expert legal teams defending the interests and reputations of state and corporate bodies - fighting to shut down or narrow lines of enquiry, with a primary focus on damage limitation.’

https://www.inquest.org.uk/legal-aid-for-inquests

There is a call to action on their site which invites readers to sign a petition. That is one small action that we can all take. This should not be controversial. Why should those who suffer most, be the only ones excluded from the process.

 www.stevecornforth.com

Justice on the verge of collapse - (let's pile some more on top)

Anyone who has read this blog knows that I do not pretend to be an expert in criminal law. I did spend a couple of years at the start of my legal life, hanging around Liverpool Magistrates Court. It was a terrifying experience – and that was just the magistrates and some of the older lawyers who seemed to know everything, and everyone compared to me! I also spent some time sitting behind impressive barristers in the glorious setting of St Georges Hall in Liverpool*. But that is the extent of my life of crime.

But as someone who was worked as a lawyer for over 30 years, I do care about justice. I also spend far too much time on twitter…

On Friday I read several tweets about shortages of courts and the impact that this was having on our criminal justice system. Here are just some –

There are several causes. One explanation is that there are simply not enough judges available. There are part time judges; practicing lawyers who can sit as judges when needed. But this would cost the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) money – something that they do not have. This, however just scratches the surface of the collapsing criminal justice system. This was brought to the attention of the world by the Secret Barrister’s now Classic book. If you haven’t read this, stop what are doing and get hold of a copy…now!

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Secret-Barrister-Stories-Law-Broken/dp/1509841105

We seem to be witnessing a systematic dismantling of our criminal justice system which is starved of resources at all levels. Defendants wait months, even years to be brought to trial. Victims wait just as long. Nervous witnesses wait just as long. Hard working, underpaid lawyers are sent home…

Our political leaders are doing something. The Home Secretary, Priti Patel has promised that criminals will feel terror at the thought of offending. We are promised more police officers, greater use of stop and search and as a result many more prosecutions. That is music to the ears of many of her fans. But it is empty rhetoric. The system is already on the verge of chaos. The answer is not to pile more and more on top.

Where is the pledge to invest in the courts system?

Where is the pledge to invest in the CPS?

Where is the pledge to invest in a proper legal aid scheme enabling all these extra defendants to be represented?

Sadly, none of these are vote winners.

The real terror is that a person accused of an offence, and a victim of crime will wait years and in many cases find themselves lost in the system that cannot cope.

*thanks to my friend Phil Longfoot for the beautiful photo of the old No1 court.

www.stevecornforth.com

Legal Aid, Hashem Abedi and understandable anger

There is much anger in the media today about the news that Hashem Abedi, brother of Manchester bomber, Salman Abedi will have the benefit of legal aid to defend criminal proceedings brought against him. The Daily Mirror complains that he will have public funds to cover his legal costs whereas the families of victims have struggled to get legal aid for representation at the inquests.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/manchester-bombing-victims-denied-legal-18831172

The anger is, on this occasion, entirely understandable although the basis of the argument itself is flawed.

We have two different types of legal aid in play here. Mr. Abedi is entitled to state funded support because he is being prosecuted by the state. The Government’s Guidelines for Criminal Legal Aid say that the more serious the charge or possible consequences, the more likely it is that a Defendant will be granted legal aid. It is inevitable that he will face a trial in the Crown Court. Cases before that court are deemed to satisfy that test of seriousness. There is no real argument against Mr Abedi having legal aid for his defence. It is an entitlement for those facing action by the state. It is not deserved or earned by merit. It is there to ensure that those who might be imprisoned by the state are properly represented.

This is very different from Civil Legal Aid to enable families to be represented at an inquest. There is no automatic entitlement. Funding can only be granted in exceptional circumstances. Those circumstances are as follows –

‘In the context of an inquest, the most likely wider public benefits are the identification of dangerous practices, systematic failings or other findings that identify significant risks to the life, health or safety of other persons.'

I recently discussed this in relation to the case of Molly Russell whose family were, initially, refused legal aid despite the major concerns about the role of Social Media in her death.

https://thestevecornforthblog.blogspot.com/2019/03/molly-russell-instagram-and-legal-aid.html

The Manchester bombing inquests are clearly of major public interest. What greater example of an event that involved significant risks to life, health or safety? Of course, the families should be granted legal aid. This was an atrocity of such magnitude that no expense should be spared to ensure that the families have answers to the questions, and so that we can be re-assured that no stone will be left unturned. We want to know what can be done to ensure that this never happens again. It should be an automatic entitlement to state funding, that does not depend on the finances of the families –

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/03/families-of-manchester-terror-victims-must-declare-valuables-to-get-legal-aid

The argument is not – ‘they don’t get legal aid so why should he?'

Both should be equally entitled to legal aid for different but extremely important reasons.