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

[NicD]

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...

[NicD]

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'

[NicD]

Breadvan72 said:

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.

'professional ethics and judgment' ho ho ho

Your poor Polish chap suffering from a 'badly drafted regulation' would be out of luck if he couldn't pay or convince someone of his case, just like I would be.
Unless of course, one of your colleagues did some pro bono work
Coming from another country, he is likely used to much worse than this.

If the world was indeed universally fair, I would have no problem. Unfortunately, it is over fair to the wealthy and connected and strangely enough, the strident 'poor'

The middle (and top rate) pays for this charade yet benefits little.

[NicD]

Breadvan72 said:

So, should we just lower our standards to those of less developed countries? Legal aid used to be available to people in the middle, but years of cuts have indeed reduced to it the level where only the very poor can get it. Is the answer, however, to say "because I can't have it, no one should have it"? That question can be applied to a variety of social issues, not just legal aid.

yes, that is it exactly.
Britain can't afford grandiose delusions as there are no longer colonies.
The odd bit of pomp and circumstance is fine but not the troughing. Has to stop.

[NicD]

Breadvan72 said:

NicD, can we apply that across the board? Let's assume that you don't use social services. So, why should they exist? Some of us can afford to buy private health care and schooling, so why do we need to have an NHS or State schools? Back on topic, shall we say that access to justice is simply not a public good that should be supported by the State?

BV, you have slightly skewed my words, not a criticism, but to clarify. Whether I use a service is not the criteria, it is whether I, and millions like me COULD.
I also mentioned the folly that the UK should pretend to be a leading light to other 'less developed' countries at huge cost to the tax payer.
But as always, follow the money.

[NicD]

but not true.

[NicD]

but not true.

[NicD]

but not true.