Skip to main content

Legal aid proposals for family division

There is a lot of wailing going on about the legal aid proposals. Some of it may be valid.

However, given that most firms of solicitors merely roll over when facing care proceedings against their clients I see a lot of the money as being simply wasted.

Furthermore given that legal aid is from time to time refused for parents who wish to contest proceedings I wonder what it is all about.

Comments

lucindee said…
Parents are entitled to legal aid as of right in care proceedings. They are never refused legal aid for this type of case.
john said…
I know of two cases where the legal aid certificate was rescinded because the parents wished to contest proceedings.
jacquig said…
I thought I posted a comment before Lucy did - I do not know of a case in which parents have been refused legal aid for the original care proceedings - this is non-means, non-merits tested ie automatic. SSD bring proceedings - parents get public funding - only refused at a later stage if they want to appeal or discharge the care order -and are deemed to have no merit. I am very uncomfortable about the role of the original lawyer in recommending appeals and the whole structure of funding for appeals but the main case is without issue - happy to discuss if you have other information.
john said…
There are difficulties changing lawyer and indeed contesting an ICO when the ICO has originally been agreed. The difficulty is that at times parents are bullied into accepting an ICO and then recognise their error. Then they have legal aid removed because they wish to contest an ICO.

An ICO can be challenged on Article 8 even if originally accepted although the childrens act would not necessarily permit this.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…