Report comment

The thing that puzzles me about the initial judgment is that the same logic can be applied to ALL civil court fees.
Is it really the case that all fees required to enable access to justice in the civil courts have always been unlawful?
Whilst not derogating from the apparently sound logic behind that judgment it must be the case that the issue was considered and dealt on grounds of practicality when the very first court fees were set long ago.
Methinks the judges are either politically motivated or lack knowledge of history.
My understanding is that there was a clear distinction between the criminal courts where justice demands free access and the civil courts where users should be expected to pay.