Report comment

This is yet another example of the iniquitous system that I would never have thought could exist in the English legal system, that children (or minors, if you like,) who almost never have their own means and never the power to control them if they have, are not automatically entitled to State funded representation, independent of any means their parents may/not have. How has that survived from the days when parents, or fathers, I suppose, were deemed to own their children, and wives - and the right to beat them, which admittedly was only recently restricted? Why has no-one, not Justice, not Liberty, not even Shami C, uttered a squeak?
And can such representation really not be one of those HRs that the ECtHR so valiantly defends for the worst of criminals against the inhuman depredations of our government?
Why are you lawyers, who probably created the 'precedent', so silent on the matter? Is there some can of worms that would spew forth if the Supreme Court decided that that mythical equality of legal arms I heard about in school should at least exist for inherently arm-less children?