'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

263 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
Good sense from the Minister:

Legal aid is not for foreigners to fight cases through British courts, says justice minister

Chris Grayling says justice system is being abused by pressure groups and law firms using legal aid to profit from cases aimed at blocking Government decisions

Foreigners must be banned from fighting British court cases using legal aid to stop the justice system being brought into disrepute, the Justice Secretary has said. Chris Grayling warns that court cases brought by foreign citizens using British taxpayers’ money risk undermining faith in the justice system.
Writing in The Telegraph, Mr Grayling attacks pressure groups and law firms, accusing them of profiting from legal cases aimed at blocking Government decisions. British society is “too legalistic”, with too many people and groups mounting legal cases to advance their own interests, he argues.

As an example, he cited Public Interest Lawyers, who acted for Iraqis claiming that British troops in Iraq had unlawfully killed up to 20 civilians.
After a year-long public inquiry costing the taxpayer more than £20 million, the firm last month accepted that there was no evidence to substantiate the claims.
Such cases now jeopardise public faith in the system, Mr Grayling suggests.
Public Interest Lawyers is headed by Phil Shiner, a persistent critic of Coalition policies. The firm has actively sought cases to bring against the Government over the conduct of the Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and has also acted for benefits claimants challenging welfare reforms.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...

10 Pence Short

32,880 posts

223 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
I'm not sure I agree with his principles; that people should find it increasingly difficult to challenge government behaviour.

As a state we do operate abroad and, where people on foreign shores are affected negatively by our actions, I think it's right they have proper access to due process.

Grayling seems to approach the idea of the courts scrutinising the state as a bad thing. I see it as an essential thing.

Scuffers

20,887 posts

280 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
Your in a minority then...

Legal aid should only be for British citizens to help support them in the British courts.

10 Pence Short

32,880 posts

223 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
Scuffers said:
Your in a minority then...

Legal aid should only be for British citizens to help support them in the British courts.
I may be in the minority, I accept that.

I also believe people who are affected by decisions made by our state should have the same rights and access to justice wherever they are based. If we are sufficiently interested to be operating beyond our borders we should bear the same (if not greater) scrutiny of our actions, in my opinion.

SystemParanoia

14,343 posts

204 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
They should fight our system from their own countries courts then.

If their country doesn't let them do it for free.... Diddums!

anonymous-user

60 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
I deplore the misconceived Iraqi challenge as much as anyone, and find the antics of some of the campaigning lawyers highly questionable (I used to see them at close range when I did Government work); but as usual Grayling is cherry pricking and using an abusive case to attack the general concept of challenging the State when it acts unlawfully. Grayling is proposing to limit judicial review, and cases like this may help him to do that, but the public may be less pleased when they find out in contexts closer to home that the Government has reduced scrutiny of its actions.

As for limiting legal aid to British people, what about a non Brit lawfully resident here?

10 Pence Short

32,880 posts

223 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
SystemParanoia said:
They should fight our system from their own countries courts then.

If their country doesn't let them do it for free.... Diddums!
What jurisdiction would their own court have over our government?

People who cannot afford the financial cost of challenging our government's behaviour, should they just have to suck it up?

Knowing they are less likely to have their behavior scrutinised, do you believe the government will behave in a more, or less proper fashion on foreign shores?

SystemParanoia

14,343 posts

204 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
Its a foreign shore.. Why would I care?

anonymous-user

60 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
SystemParanoia said:
They should fight our system from their own countries courts then.

If their country doesn't let them do it for free.... Diddums!
Suppose that those courts are corrupt or incompetent, and find against UK interests? Isn't there something to be said for having UK interests defended in courts that have non corrupt and usually efficient Judges?

That's a pragmatic argument. There is also the principled argument that, as a common law democracy, where our State goes, its governing principles should go too.

anonymous-user

60 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
SystemParanoia said:
Its a foreign shore.. Why would I care?
It hasn't been possible for Britain to enjoy Splendid Isolation since about the seventeenth century (if it ever was).

ClaphamGT3

11,506 posts

249 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
10 Pence Short said:
Scuffers said:
Your in a minority then...

Legal aid should only be for British citizens to help support them in the British courts.
I may be in the minority, I accept that.

I also believe people who are affected by decisions made by our state should have the same rights and access to justice wherever they are based. If we are sufficiently interested to be operating beyond our borders we should bear the same (if not greater) scrutiny of our actions, in my opinion.
A minority of at least two......

While no informed person would claim that the Legal Aid system would not benefit from significant reform, the idea of denying certain groups access to LA based on politically motivated reasons is a retrograde step

anonymous-user

60 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
The recent Iraqi case was indeed duff, and Shiner et al are rightly to be castigated, but there have been other cases in which unlawful actions by UK State agents overseas were established in Court, or where the State settled the claims on a basis indicative of liability.

More prosaically, take an example such as a low paid worker from Poland whose boss swindles him of his small wages, or skimps on safety equipment so that the worker is badly injured. The Polish guy is not a scrounger and is in the UK lawfully. He has little money. Should he not be able to apply for legal aid to help him hold his dodgy boss to account?

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 21st April 08:05

Scuffers

20,887 posts

280 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
As for limiting legal aid to British people, what about a non Brit lawfully resident here?
and there you have it, the real problem..

Yes, in theory, no problem if they are British residents, the problem comes when the whole of the EU can be lawfully resident here.

see the problem?

NicD

Original Poster:

3,281 posts

263 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
The recent Iraqi case was indeed duff, and Shiber et al are rightly to be castigated, but there have been other cases in which unlawful actions by UK State agents overseas were established in Court, or where the State settled the claims on a basis indicative of liability.

More prosaically, take an example such as a low paid worker from Poland whose boss swindles hims of his small wages, or skimps on safety equipment so that the worker is badly injured. The Polish guy is not a scrounger and is in the UK lawfully. He has little money. Should he not be able to apply for legal aid to help him hold his dodgy boss to account?
I may be wrong but isn't this why 'no win no fee' came into being?
If he has a good case, a law businessman will take up the case.

As for the overseas cases, I would much rather trust journalists researching a story to present to the public than self interested legal aiders as exists today.

We tax payers are sick of being financially raped by a rather long list of 'professionals'

Derek Smith

46,422 posts

254 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
There are two aspects to this:

I/ An accusation of improper conduct by British troops,

2/ Lawyers abusing the system for personal gain.

It is unfortunate, but no doubt deliberate, that these two have become mixed.

In the case of 1/, then this is of concern to us all. Where else should the case be heard but in the country of origin of the occupying troops.

As for 2/, my personal belief is that there needs to be a finer filter at an early stage of proceedings. Judges need to get a firmer grip. In the broader aspect of this, courts are rapidly becoming no-go areas for all but the very rich, not helped by the attack on legal aid. Pressure groups are, for many, the only hope of obtaining justice.


ClaphamGT3

11,506 posts

249 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
SystemParanoia said:
Its a foreign shore.. Why would I care?
It hasn't been possible for Britain to enjoy Splendid Isolation since about the seventeenth century (if it ever was).
55bc would be my punt.

It Woz Caesar wot dun it , coming here with his legionaries, nicking our jobs.....

anonymous-user

60 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
Scuffers said:
and there you have it, the real problem..

Yes, in theory, no problem if they are British residents, the problem comes when the whole of the EU can be lawfully resident here.

see the problem?
The whole of the EU is not resident here, and isn't going to be. Those EU citizens who are resident here tend to be economically active. Where's the problem?

NicD, no win no fee can help a bit, but, even leaving aside the deleterious effects it may have on professional ethics and judgment, a no win no fee business needs critical mass to be economic, and doesn't work if the case is difficult and risky. Assume that the Polish worker has a case that is essentially meritorious but faces a legal obstacle because of a badly drafted regulation. His case might need to be argued up to appeal level. The no win no fee shop may say no thanks, too much commercial risk.

Scuffers

20,887 posts

280 months

Monday 21st April 2014
quotequote all
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




Derek Smith

46,422 posts

254 months

Monday 21st 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.
No really sure how to comment on that.

ClaphamGT3

11,506 posts

249 months

Monday 21st 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

I'm sorry, but this is plain wrong; our armed forces should always act lawfully