Having once served, on a voluntary basis, on a legal aid assessment committee for ten years, I can confirm that the cases in which a certificate of legal aid has been granted P and proved subsequently to have been correctly granted P cover over 90% of the cases: assessment committees are very conscious of the fact that public funds are involved.

This is a far higher percentage success rate than that which is obtained in privately funded litigation.We may have reached a situation where the system of the provision of legal aid requires a complete overhaul.

It should be made available for all private citizens on a contributory basis with an equitable base platform as a starting point for a contributory assessment.

This would provide for equality before the law, and the imposition of an acceptance of individual responsibility according to one's means.

Such a system would certainly be fairer and almost certainly less costly than the present one, since a certificate for legal aid would only be granted by the appropriate legal aid committee P preferably appointed by the Law Society.To reduce the proliferation of many unmeritorious appeals and thus further reduce costs, a new provision should be introduced, following any verdict, that leave to appeal should have to be obtained either from the court that heard the case, or from the Court of Appeal.

This should be coupled with the introduction of a suitor's fund to underwrite appeals.This was first proposed in 1969 by Justice, the English section of the International Commission of Jurists, its purpose being to alleviate the burden on litigants of appeals.

If an appeal is successful, it will necessarily mean that there has been either a misdirection by the judge, a perverse verdict by the jury, or an erroneous decision on a point of law.

It is clearly unfair that a litigant should have to bear such expense, when it is no fault of the litigant that an appeal follows.Such a fund has already successfully been in operation for many years in Australasia and cou ld be financed by a very small increase in court fees, payable when a writ is issued and when an action is set down for trial.

Why have we had to wait nearly 25 years for the introduction of such a sensible and equitable innovation in our country?The extent of the injustice arising from the absence of adequate legal aid for the private citizen may be judged from the fact that, as recently as 1979, over two-thirds of the population were eligible for legal advice under the legal aid scheme; now, only 14 years later, as reported by the Law Society, at least 10 million of our fellow citizens will be forced out of the legal aid scheme.

In addition, many thousands will have to abandon civil actions because they will simply not be able to afford the higher contributions which the Lord Chancellor has advocated.

Already 20% of those offered legal aid subject to a contribution have had to turn down assistance because they are simply unable to afford to exercise the right which should be open to every citizen, and thus are effectively denied access to the courts.The purpose of legal aid was to provide the means by which the principle of equality before the law, which underlies our legal system, should cease to be mere theory and become a practicable reality and to establish legal aid as an integral part of the administration of justice and not a mere adjunct or optional extra.Of the three basic essentials of life: food, clothing and shelter, our record on shelter is certainly susceptible to criticism.

Of the three fundamental requirements of social justice in a civilised society: health care, education and justice, in writing only of justice before the law I, like many lawyers, feel we are fast failing to maintain a system which attains the fundamental requirement of justice for all.

Even more serious, the move towards equality before the law is being eroded.