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 –
In August 2019 there was a further outcry when families of
the Manchester Bombing victims faced a similar struggle –
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.
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.
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.’
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment