UK Legal System

[capt_cornflake]

I think that the threshold is a little low, but otherwise the principle is fine. My argument is that the threshold should be pegged to twice the annual average salary, so that those households with a pair of average earners gets legal aid, but if you're better off than the average man, you have to pay.

I don't think the earnings cap is the main problem, although it seems to have got the most attention (particularly in this thread).
It's the fixed fee and competitive tendering which is the main concern.

[Agent]

If there is a cap and some people need to pay costs, they should get a refund of that amount if they are found innocent.

There is absolutely no way I could support anything that cost an innocent man money to prove his innocence long term.

When does the taxpayer cease being liable ... if ever?

The taxpayer shouldn't be liable if they are guilty, IMO.

I don't really care if they are a billionaire or unemployed. Everyone should have access to a basic legal defence, much like people have access to the NHS.

I just hope this doesn't go the way of the ATOS scandal.

[wasabi]

There is absolutely no way I could support anything that cost an innocent man money to prove his innocence long term.

'The law' has become a bit of a cash-cow for lawyers and increasngly driven by abstract technicalities of the arrest process and the likes.

Perhpas some sort of cap on both what the CPS and the individual (any individual, not just the poor) can spend on legal advice would level the playing field?

[TheAnimus]

Perhpas some sort of cap on both what the CPS and the individual (any individual, not just the poor) can spend on legal advice would level the playing field?

Great, lets all go and do some very complex tax fraud! No way they will be able to put a case together to prove any guilt if there is a cap for that.

(I honestly don't think they do much to stop white collar crime as is)

[chuckskull]

The individual proposals are a mixed bag. An income cap for legal aid might be a good idea, but 37k seems a little on low side and a big part of me thinks that in our legal system anybody be able to throw their hands up and say I can't afford a solicitor, even if it means some criminals abuse the system. The bidding and not being able to change lawyers bit is however very unpleasant. The way it's being implemented without debate or vote, is absolutely disgusting, particularly as it will have serious effect on the ability of private citizens to defend themselves from criminal charges. Anything that does that, must get the full parliamentary treatment, at minimum, as far as I'm concerned and that's an absolute for me. So signed.

[wasabi]

Great, lets all go and do some very complex tax fraud! No way they will be able to put a case together to prove any guilt if there is a cap for that.

(I honestly don't think they do much to stop white collar crime as is)

Yeah but... is it going to produce any worse judgements than we currently get with the ability of the rich (celebs / companies) to afford massive legal teams?

Slight tangent - isn't tax fraud largely covered by civil law?

[cookie365]

Yeah but... is it going to produce any worse judgements than we currently get with the ability of the rich (celebs / companies) to afford massive legal teams?

Slight tangent - isn't tax fraud largely covered by civil law?

No, fraud is a criminal offence. Settling tax disputes is civil law.