Society steps in over Hamza legal aid row

Law Society would do better to improve the image of Solicitors by putting out a statement deploring the wasteful use of Legal Aid in such ludicrous, never-ending extradition cases. They make Jarndyce v Jarndyce seem like summary justice....

Does the LSC ever apply a merits test to these wretched extradition cases?

Should Learned Counsel who put forward such cases for legal aid support be forced to forgo their fees if they lose?

I don't do legal aid work but I wish the Law Society would respond to such stories by issuing press releases pointing out some of the key points in relation to legal aid costs such as the fact that it inlcudes disbursements (and therefore can cover the work of a number of different people as well as Court fees) and the fact that it can cover a number of years worth of work. Also, doesn't it include VAT and isn't part of the figure in this case taken up by the costs of the prosecution? I appreciate that the Law Society will not know all of the relevant details of each case but surely they could issue some sort of response to the press setting out the sort of factors involved so as to try and limit the "fat cat lawyer" implication of these stories. Still, I don't suppose that the media would be interested.

A few things spring to mind here. Firstly, Grayling is both right to examine the circumstances of the Abu Hamza case, and to want to restore public confidence in legal aid, which will not have been helped by the Daily Mail's reporting of that case.

Secondly, the Society is right to want to work with him on this, and strategically, it should be seen to do so; and be listened to.

On the former; whilst Hamza's lawyers no doubt properly explored the avenues open to their client, many might have felt their realistic prospect of success was negligible, as proved to be the case, once the appellate process had finally been exhausted by the ECHR's ruling.

However, Hamza still had the right to challenge it, and the extent to which Grayling may feel legal aid should have been withheld will have to be balanced,in his review, between that right and the taxpayer interest.

That isn't an unfair exercise, despite what the human rights law lobby above may say. It does, however, give ammunition to critics of the HRA and ECHR and to a Eurosceptic like Grayling, and that is potentially, very useful to him.

In that respect a forlorn hope series of expensive but useless challenges has gifted him a populist bouquet from the Mail, which will smell sweet to him, if less so to Gazette readers.

It has also forced a defiant but defensive statement from Justice, but that is only likely to be seen by Gazette, not Mail readers!

It's worth suggesting Hamza could have been represented pro bono- the publicity value of the case would have justified the sunk costs- had legal aid been withdrawn in any event.

The Lord Chief Justice's own comments on these kind of extradition cases- at his annual press conference- were an indication that judicial patience on parties spinning these out is also not inexhaustible, and that should also be remembered.

Secondly, the Law Society is absolutely right to say it will work with Grayling on this. The government's post-LAPSO line is one of reconciliation.

However badly Lord McNally's recent comments to LAPG might have been received by hard-working and poorly treated legal aid solicitors, the fact remains that MoJ still needs to implement the changes in April; that these should be done as fairly and efficiently as the system is capable (not promising); and it needs the Society to work with it on these, even if practitioners hate their principle passionately.

In short, the Society needs to make the best of a bad job. It also needs to affirm public support for the system that remains. That then stands a better chance of surviving, and, if the current changes fail, possibly recognising certain decisions went too far. It needs to build bridges and secure what it can from government.

Hamza's battles are lost; many will say good riddance. Reminding government of the public good involved in legal aid for most cases is sensible politics from Hudson and Scott-Moncrieff. In this respect, the Society is blessed with good leadership.

The Society ought to put out publicity pointing out that while the bulk of the spend is on criminal legal aid and the increases in recent years have been in that area, it is civil legal aid which has been hammered. Also pointing out that Ken Clarke cut the not for profit legal aid sector by 77% in the Legal Aid bill.

The Society should be trumpeting from the rooftops details of cases where the grant of legal aid has resulted in a fair and just outcome and cases where the public would support the grant of legal aid. An easy example would be the type of case where children have been taken abroad in defiance of court orders. There are lots of other categories of case that could and should be publicised. Naturally, it would depend upon the client being willing to divulge that they were in receipt of legal aid but I suspect that most clients would if asked be happy to be used for this sort of publicity.

As officers of the Court the solicitors and counsel involved in this case on behalf of the criminals had a duty to protect the course of justice and not to engage in ever more ludicrous expense to frustrate it. It is to be hoped that they will end their careers in front of the Discplinary Tribunal and Bar Council for bringing the profession into disrepute and be ordered to repay money wasted..

BTW - it just shows how out of touch the Law Soc is with its members when they make these stupid pronouncements.

So many of them are so left-wing leaning that it makes us look like an adjunct of the Labour Party...

As commented elsewhere, in the context of SRA fining powers, the Law Society because of loss of reputation, now has less standing to influence these types of debates in a meaningful way.

This loss of reputation has gone hand in hand with the haemorrhage of ethics and professionalism evident from the policies currently being pursued and imposed on the rest of us by our ruling elite.

There is seems little confidence at the top to make profound comments on the legal issues of the day unlike our American cousins.

This has also meant that the passion has for the moment gone out of the Law and has been replaced by a dry obession with dubious "tick the box" processes

No doubt the Gazette will shortly wheel out Roger Smith to accuse anyone who disagrees with these fees of betraying their forefathers, stamping on human rights, ripping up the Magna Carta or some other hyperbole.

The reality is, resources are scarce and if there is a grand principle at stake here in allowing multiple publicly funded appeals up the system with little prospect of success, it is a principle which is not worth the cost.

It is surely not beyond the realms of imagination to construct an system where, if somebody wishes to appeal an extradition decision, they have a) a right to a hearing b) a single right to appeal that hearing's decision c) public funding is capped at a reasonable level for each stage of this process and d) arguments for appeal must show a reasonable prospect for success. If that requires removing the ECHR from the equation then so be it.

The principle at stake here is not the value of legal aid per se, which is of course essential for the right cases. Instead of banging the legal aid drum, why can't the Law Society grow some proverbial balls and actually admit that this case has been an embarassing waste of money?

Ever heard the saying the law in an ass apply that to the people who run legal aid .Asses who shell out money like confetti they should be publically flogged together with those making such stupid arguments under the guise of the law.