Own a car or enjoy legal aid - that seems to be the message coming out of the government, according to The Times, which splashed on its front page this week how legal aid is 'to be scrapped for the middle class' (26 January).

On the back of an interview with Department for Constitutional Affairs minister David Lammy, the paper said ministers want to bring back the means test in the magistrates' court - although this was not exactly hot-off-the-press news as the move was flagged up when plans for a draft Criminal Defence Bill were announced in the Queen's speech last November (see [2003] Gazette, 4 December, 7).

Mr Lammy said the move would be aimed at motoring offenders.

The paper explained: 'They are seen as a prime target because of their numbers, and also because, as car owners, they could largely afford the cost of a court hearing.'

An RAC spokeswoman attacked the logic of this, adding: 'My fear would be that there would be some people who couldn't afford to go to court even if they weren't guilty.'

The Law Society told the newspaper that while it supported the idea of guilty people being made to bear their own legal costs, means testing before a case could create cost and delay.

The Court of Appeal ruling in the Angela Cannings case, following those clearing solicitor Sally Clark and Trupti Patel, and the subsequent decision to review the cases of 258 parents convicted over the deaths of their babies, saw the media shine a spotlight on the role of expert witnesses - with the court saying that such cases should no longer proceed if the sole evidence was an expert's view that was disputed by other professionals.

The Daily Telegraph headlined its story with the claim that 'expert witnesses can earn more than the barristers they face'.

It explained: 'With fees of up to 1,000 for a day's appearance plus expenses, the country's most eminent doctors can make a lucrative sideline appearing in criminal and civil courts.'

Well-known witness trainer Mark Solon told the newspaper that 'clearly there is a potential for self-interest in providing the opinion that the instructing lawyers would like to hear', but he added that in any case, experts were sometimes put under pressure by solicitors to 'massage their findings'.

The newspaper also suggested that reputations in the legal system 'were often made by the number of appearances [in court], not the accuracy of the evidence'.

But doctors expressed concern that the pendulum could swing too far the other way.

Dr Harvey Marcovitch, a spokesman for the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said many suspicious cases might no longer get to court under the new guidelines.

In an editorial, the Telegraph came down firmly against the 'expert knows best' approach.

'Juries and prosecutors should learn to trust less in the theories of experts, and more in their own common sense,' it said.

The Economist also weighed in, saying that it is in areas of scientific uncertainty that experts' views have particular weight.

But 'where today's conventional wisdom is tomorrow's discredited theory...

juries should treat "experts" with the greatest scepticism'.

It said the lesson of the baby death cases may help avoid future miscarriages of justice.

'But it has been learned at a terrible price,' the magazine concluded.

A surprising number of law students fall at the first hurdle when seeking employment through poor applications, The Times reported in its 'Student Law' supplement (20 January).

For those aspiring to the legal profession, there are a worrying number of elementary errors, such as poor spelling, on-line forms full of sections badly cut and pasted from other applications, and misplaced efforts to be funny - one firm with a senior partner named Jim received a covering letter that read: 'Dear Jim, can you fix it for me?' It went straight into the shredder.

But the major modern no-no is the influence of popular culture on your career decision.

Sophie Ferguson of City firm Taylor Wessing said: 'If I read that someone has been inspired to become a lawyer by watching 'Ally McBeal' then it is an almost instant rejection.'

Finally, opponents of so-called Tesco Law will no doubt read something into a story on on-line news service Ananova (21 January) that a man with legal expenses insurance bought from Tesco has been told he cannot claim for legal costs - because his action is against Tesco for a fall his wife suffered at one of the supermarket's stores.

The company said the exclusion was contained in the policy wording.

Neil Rose