7ryMJjyBMgowKMZdQ~~_7.JPG "cee-dee"){kind=avatar}
What gross hypocrisy from a man who has never spoken out against the policies of his own party on the subject, when amongst other sweeping changes, they passed this ammendment to the 1985 Legal Aid Act.
... until now of course.
Except in very few circumstances, this stopped defence costs being refunded to anyone not legally aided, Nigel Evans' case is certainly not one of those exceptions.
Sweet irony that Evans was the chair when this was being debated in the Commons in 2011.
Regardless of political beliefs, I don't think many could argue that the changes in legislation have left the vast majority who, guilty or innocent, find themselves in the unfortunate position of having to finance a defence in a criminal trial in a poorer position. Whether complainant or defendant, the same(if not more so) applies in civil cases.
The only ones unaffected are the very rich to whom the money doesn't matter. The very poor are still eligible to free representation, but their choice of counsel has been severely restricted.
Afaics, the rest of us only have 3 choices.
1. Find the money from somewhere and pay for the team we can afford.
2. Represent ourselves(something Ken Clarke said should be encouraged in 2012).
3. Cut out all costs by pleading guilty at earliest opportunity!
In reply to, Should he be paid back his £130k?
Unless the same is applied after every not guilty verdict, then no ***bleep*** way!
