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.
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.
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 –
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.
Yes - both, not neither.
ReplyDelete