Are some cases beyond the pale when it comes to legal aid?

After Roy Whiting’s sentence for the murder of eight-year-old Sarah Payne was reduced by the Court of Appeal, her mother criticised the availability of legal aid to fund the action and solicitors who advise prisoners to fight such cases.

She had also done so beforehand in an interview for GMTV. Sara Payne said it made her ‘really mad’ that prisoners continued to have ‘legally aided fights’, adding: ‘Obviously it is law firms, lawyers that go round and tell prisoners “did you know you could be fighting on this or this or that?”. And of course prisoners want to buck the system as much as they can.’

Her comments are understandable, since one cannot even begin to imagine the agony and grief that Whiting’s crime continues to cause Sara Payne and her family.

They raise questions too. Should legal aid be denied in cases such as Whiting’s, where the crime is heinous and where it could be argued that, pragmatically, the appeal will serve no purpose. Whiting will be 81 before he is even eligible for parole and will almost certainly die in prison. Indeed, the 10-year reduction to the 50-year tariff set by the then home secretary David Blunkett may have little effect other than to add to the anguish of the Payne family.

That Whiting should have been granted the opportunity to challenge the sentence is right nevertheless, since the sentence was set not by a judge, but by a politician who may have taken into account factors other than justice when making his decision.

Moreover, one of the hallmarks of a civilised society is that it affords the protection of the rule of law to all its citizens, however notorious or despicable their deeds. That protection is lacking if a person does not have the funds to gain access to the law, which is why public funding is a necessary corollary.

Sara Payne’s mother was not alone last week in criticising lawyers for advising certain types of client. Immigration minister Damian Green attacked solicitors who he said ‘routinely use judicial reviews as last-minute attempts’ to delay the removal of people who have no legal basis to remain in the UK.

In essence, the same argument that applies to the Whiting appeal applies here. If a country is serious about its commitment to the rule of law, there can be no exceptions.