'Legal aid is not for foreigners to fight cases..'

'Legal aid is not for foreigners to fight cases..'

Author
Discussion

NicD

Original Poster:

3,281 posts

256 months

Tuesday 22nd April 2014
quotequote all
but not true.

PlankWithANailIn

439 posts

148 months

Tuesday 22nd April 2014
quotequote all
For those that want some facts here are some stats from the MoJ for JR's. Please note most of these are not funded by Legal Aid.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

It even tells you what a JR is...quite useful if you are going to post comments about the subject. A quick summary is "Its what stops our government turning into Nazi hell".

In recent years there has been a large increase in Immigration and Asylum JR's, but these have gone down just recently as the Government has started doing things within the law instead of against it and shockingly started getting the outcomes it desired (Hamza etc.)..who ever said earlier that the government takes poor counsel is spot on, Ministers spend so long clawing their way to the top that they are shocked to find out they are still not above the law! They simply will not listen to expert advice and would rather pass new and illegal legislation than simply use the systems already in place.

There was a Parliamentary question about this time last year asking for the success rate of Legally Aided JR's shocking they were 70% successful but make up a tiny proportion of the overall JR's in the system so are essentially irrelevant. I will try and dig it out but I am finding the governments publications website hard to use

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/

Its made harder as JR's are not a specific category of Legal Aid funding and are covered by a general "in the public interest" element and are sometimes referred to as "borderline" cases.

If the government wants less JR's then it should stop doing things that are illegal...its that simple.


league67

1,878 posts

202 months

Wednesday 23rd April 2014
quotequote all
NicD said:
but not true.
But true. Repeating it several times will not make it less true.

Scuffers

20,887 posts

273 months

Wednesday 23rd April 2014
quotequote all

ClaphamGT3 said:
Scuffers said:
Would help if you read what I said rather than what you think I said.
But how do we address the fact that, ignoring that it reads less well than if my six year old daughter had written it, what you say is absolute gibberish?
so, we are back to attach the poster rather than address the subject?

poor show...

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 23rd April 2014
quotequote all
PlankWithANailIn said:
...who ever said earlier that the government takes poor counsel is spot on, Ministers spend so long clawing their way to the top that they are shocked to find out they are still not above the law! They simply will not listen to expert advice and would rather pass new and illegal legislation than simply use the systems already in place.

There was a Parliamentary question about this time last year asking for the success rate of Legally Aided JR's shocking they were 70% successful but make up a tiny proportion of the overall JR's in the system so are essentially irrelevant. I will try and dig it out but I am finding the governments publications website hard to use

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/

Its made harder as JR's are not a specific category of Legal Aid funding and are covered by a general "in the public interest" element and are sometimes referred to as "borderline" cases.

If the government wants less JR's then it should stop doing things that are illegal...its that simple.
I concur,with one qualification: The Government does not take poor counsel. It has good counsel but, as you say, it does not listen to them, or at least not often enough.

The level of constitutional ignorance amongst Ministers surprised me when I used to do Government cases. They neither know nor care about how and why the constitutional checks and balances of the UK developed over time, and they attach no importance to them. Their understanding of democracy and civil government appears to be limited to whatever will get them re-elected, which often translates as whatever will keep the Daily Mail happy (an impossible task anyway, as the Daily Mail's whole existence depends on it and its readers never being happy).

There's also an obsession with not being criticised (again, fear of what the Mail will say). Often as much time seems to be taken up with reputation management as with policy development. The essential message across the board is CYA.

PS: pedantry point - fewer JRs. "Less jam, fewer spoons", as my old aunty (didn't) use to say.

PRTVR

7,073 posts

220 months

Wednesday 23rd April 2014
quotequote all
I think I have the answer to the problem,
The legal profession appears to like the no win no fee system, the number of adverts on the TV show how popular it is, well perhaps we could use a similar system, if legal aid is claimed and they loose, no money is paid or better still the case outcome could be graded and if it did not gain enough points the whole court costs were the responsibility of the legal team bringing the case.

As for the government not doing things wrong and this would reduce the claims, get real, the world is a violent place, British law does not change that, take the Hamza case, I think if he had been dropped from the back of an aircraft mid Atlantic very few people would have been upset, wrong yes but so is the costs incurred defending him, how many would have taken the case if there was no pay at the end of it,attempting to take the moral high ground is a hard thing to do when money is involved.

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 23rd April 2014
quotequote all
Most JR cases involve the Government acting unlawfully (or not, as it does win cases too) in the UK and in relation to UK residents with UK problems. Cases about stuff happening overseas or involving dodgy foreigners are relatively rare. The cases involve schools closing, hospitals closing, child care, social care, local government finance, electoral issues, and all sorts of things about the interface between the state and the citizen. Take away judicial review and you leave the Government unfettered save by periodic elections.

If you want to live in the sort of country where the Government can take someone like Hamza and chuck him out of an aircraft with impunity, why not move to the sort of country that Hamza favours?

No win no fee leads on to contingency fees, and that is a bad thing because it degrades ethics and detached judgment. It is not at all popular with those lawyers who still strive to practise ethically, as it encourages the shysters and chancers. Do you really want us to go the way of the US?

I also think that your suggestion suggests a poor grasp of the economics of running a business, and of the fact that certainties are rare in any type of litigation, because of the human moderated nature of the process, which is not one than can be automated.



Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 23 April 08:49

league67

1,878 posts

202 months

Wednesday 23rd April 2014
quotequote all
PRTVR said:
I think I have the answer to the problem,
The legal profession appears to like the no win no fee system, the number of adverts on the TV show how popular it is <snip>
You think that number of adverts is the proof that legal profession likes no win no fee, or that punters like no win no fee?


Mermaid

21,492 posts

170 months

Wednesday 23rd April 2014
quotequote all
league67 said:
NicD said:
but not true.
But true. Repeating it several times will not make it less true.
PH software issue, not emphasis by NicD. smile

mrpurple

2,624 posts

187 months

Wednesday 23rd April 2014
quotequote all
I thought the rules on NWNF had changed recently to make it less appealing to frivolous claims.

Is a CFA the same thing?...... does the availability ATE insurance make it easier for frivolous claims to be made?

Apologies for my ignorance on this but do find the subject interesting.

PRTVR

7,073 posts

220 months

Wednesday 23rd April 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:


If you want to live in the sort of country where the Government can take someone like Hamza and chuck him out of an aircraft with impunity, why not move to the sort of country that Hamza favours?




Edited by Breadvan72 on Wednesday 23 April 08:49
The question that needs asking is what would people given the chance to vote on the subject vote? Given his views and his hatred of our society and the cost of defending him, and as if as I suspect most would vote for a plane flight, should law not reflect society's wishes? Perhaps what is going wrong is that the law is a law untu itselelf and does not reflect the society it serves.

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 23rd April 2014
quotequote all
The society that the law serves is a pluralistic democracy living under the rule of law, not the rule of the mob. If we just did whatever was popular with a sufficiently large number of people we would probably still have bear baiting. Simply saying "we think he's a bad person, let's chuck him out of the window" is no basis for a civil society. Even at Nuremberg those accused of Nazi atrocities were given trials according to fair legal processes, and some were even acquitted.

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 23rd April 2014
quotequote all
mrpurple said:
I thought the rules on NWNF had changed recently to make it less appealing to frivolous claims.

Is a CFA the same thing?...... does the availability ATE insurance make it easier for frivolous claims to be made?

Apologies for my ignorance on this but do find the subject interesting.
The rules have changed but I do not do no win no fee stuff* so am not up to speed on the details. There are conditional fees agreements (NWNF) and also contingency fee agreements (NWNF plus), in which the lawyer gets a share of the winnings. The former have their uses, within limits. The latter are pernicious, in my opinion. They have damaged US society. We should not follow suit.

ATE insurers usually want to see at least a 60 to 65 per cent estimate of success before they will provide cover, and they will not back very chancy claims. They operate generally in big ticket cases,as the premiums they charge are high. ATE insurance does not have much impact outside the field of business litigation and some large scale class actions.




* I have done one CFA in what is in effect a pro bono case that raises some small public interest points. We do not expect to win. If we do, I and my team will get paid, but we think this unlikely.



Art0ir

9,401 posts

169 months

Wednesday 23rd April 2014
quotequote all
Scuffers said:
with respect...

why?

what out troops do in a war zone should never be questioned in UK civilian courts.

who are we to second-guess their actions whilst under fire?

Yes, I am sure some stuff get's done that should not be, however, take the recent case of the soldier put away for killing an insurgent, I am sure 10 minutes before that event, said insurgent would have quite happily put a bullet into one of our soldiers no?

Its' all well and good saying we are bound by the Geneva convention etc, but when the 'enemy' probably have never even heard of such things it's all a bit pointless and stupid.

as a country, it seems like we go in for self flagellation

Terrifying.

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 23rd April 2014
quotequote all
People who decry the rule of law still live under its protection, whether they are Islamic hate preachers or internet pub blowhards. The posters here who call for summary executions and mob "justice" probably do not realise that they themselves are protected by the rule of law, and they might find the wind blowing a bit cold if it was not there.

One of the many virtues of civil society is that it allows people to be crassly ill informed and to hold and express stupid opinions and prejudices. A blessing and a curse, but we must put up with it.

mrpurple

2,624 posts

187 months

Wednesday 23rd April 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
mrpurple said:
I thought the rules on NWNF had changed recently to make it less appealing to frivolous claims.

Is a CFA the same thing?...... does the availability ATE insurance make it easier for frivolous claims to be made?

Apologies for my ignorance on this but do find the subject interesting.
The rules have changed but I do not do no win no fee stuff* so am not up to speed on the details. There are conditional fees agreements (NWNF) and also contingency fee agreements (NWNF plus), in which the lawyer gets a share of the winnings. The former have their uses, within limits. The latter are pernicious, in my opinion. They have damaged US society. We should not follow suit.

ATE insurers usually want to see at least a 60 to 65 per cent estimate of success before they will provide cover, and they will not back very chancy claims. They operate generally in big ticket cases,as the premiums they charge are high. ATE insurance does not have much impact outside the field of business litigation and some large scale class actions.




* I have done one CFA in what is in effect a pro bono case that raises some small public interest points. We do not expect to win. If we do, I and my team will get paid, but we think this unlikely.

many thanks....I think I understand...just 1 more Q if I may....why should it matter that the lawyers gets a share......does that effect the outcome of any decision or award in some way? Does it not just mean the client gets less or do the defendants pay extra?

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 23rd April 2014
quotequote all
A lawyer should offer detached judgment and honest and principled advice. Many do, some don't. If a lawyer takes a commercial stake in the outcome of the claim, the lawyer's judgment may be impaired. He or she may not resist pressure to act unethically. Also, there will be pressure to exaggerate the size of the claim so as to maximise pay out to client and to lawyer.

Look how it has gone in the US. Not a model to aspire to, I suggest. Here we have the braking effect of the loser pays rule (sue and fail, pay most of the other side's costs in most cases), but that alone may not impede the growth of a US style litigation culture and the transformation of English lawyers (still for the most part, with exceptions, striving to do the job honestly) into the sharp suited shysters that the public already thinks we all are.

Scuffers

20,887 posts

273 months

Wednesday 23rd April 2014
quotequote all
Art0ir said:
Scuffers said:
with respect...

why?

what out troops do in a war zone should never be questioned in UK civilian courts.

who are we to second-guess their actions whilst under fire?

Yes, I am sure some stuff get's done that should not be, however, take the recent case of the soldier put away for killing an insurgent, I am sure 10 minutes before that event, said insurgent would have quite happily put a bullet into one of our soldiers no?

Its' all well and good saying we are bound by the Geneva convention etc, but when the 'enemy' probably have never even heard of such things it's all a bit pointless and stupid.

as a country, it seems like we go in for self flagellation

Terrifying.
go on then....

explain your position?


PlankWithANailIn

439 posts

148 months

Wednesday 23rd April 2014
quotequote all
We signed the convention and thus must stick by it, and this means paying the price when its rules are broken. If our Government does not want to be bound to these rules then it should withdraw from the convention not try to sweep things under the carpet. However it can not do this as the consequences would be huge we would be thrown out of most world bodies for a start.

What you are suggesting is so simplistic I can only assume you to be a very young man and very trusting to boot..a sort of "Our guys are good theirs bad so we should turn a blind eye" even if that means we allow one of our Soldiers to go on a murderous rampage...in your name...with your blessing...takes on a whole new meaning to keyboard warrior.

A few years ago I read two World war books by Anthony Beaver, one "Stalingrad" was amazing in it's story of human struggle, brutality an heroism. The other was "Berlin" and it was basically sickening due to the pure criminality, thuggish and evil depicted. The stories of the allies at the same time makes them seem like saints in comparison and I know which side of history I would like to be on.




Scuffers

20,887 posts

273 months

Wednesday 23rd April 2014
quotequote all
PlankWithANailIn said:
We signed the convention and thus must stick by it, and this means paying the price when its rules are broken. If our Government does not want to be bound to these rules then it should withdraw from the convention not try to sweep things under the carpet. However it can not do this as the consequences would be huge we would be thrown out of most world bodies for a start.

What you are suggesting is so simplistic I can only assume you to be a very young man and very trusting to boot..a sort of "Our guys are good theirs bad so we should turn a blind eye" even if that means we allow one of our Soldiers to go on a murderous rampage...in your name...with your blessing...takes on a whole new meaning to keyboard warrior.

A few years ago I read two World war books by Anthony Beaver, one "Stalingrad" was amazing in it's story of human struggle, brutality an heroism. The other was "Berlin" and it was basically sickening due to the pure criminality, thuggish and evil depicted. The stories of the allies at the same time makes them seem like saints in comparison and I know which side of history I would like to be on.
as usual on PH, you did not actually read what I posted.

what I said was that they should not be dragged infront of a civilian court (especially one not even in the same country as the alleged offence)

we have managed for hundreds of years to deal with military crimes within the military context, yet now your suggesting that's impossible?