Legal Aid is one of the most contentious issues in politics and journalism. Surprisingly, Legal Aid is not in fact very contentious in the legal world, because, unsurprisingly, lawyers understand how legal aid works and why it works in the way that it does. I won’t seek to assume any knowledge about the law in this blog, nor will I be heavily relying on the law itself.
Legal Aid was first officially established in 1949 and saw its last major overhaul in 2012. Prior to legal aid, many individuals had to fight an uphill battle, especially those in the criminal courts. The Crown (better understood as the state) is ALWAYS represented by a lawyer in criminal trials and hearings, this is via the Crown Prosecution Service. Defendants, however, do not always have legal representation, this was especially the case many years ago.
So, imagine being accused of a serious offence, for example, murder. You know you did not commit this crime, but there is ample evidence that points to you being the one who is very likely to have commit the murder. Now imagine you receive state benefits, you have no savings and no financial support from others, you cannot afford a lawyer and you have no understanding of the law. What are your options? Before legal aid, you would have to act ‘pro se’ meaning you would act as your own lawyer. You, an untrained individual with no legal knowledge, would have to effectively argue your innocence against a fully trained lawyer with an intimidating gown and wig, before an intimidating court being watched by strangers. In all likelihood, you are going to lose this fight.
This is where Legal Aid now steps in. The state will fund a legal representative (be that a solicitor or barrister, or likely both) in order to defend you. This person has a duty under the law to defend you no matter what (almost). This person has effectively taken an oath to provide the best advice and support that they can in order to give you a fighting chance, because, in the United Kingdom, if you state that you are not guilty, we do not assume that you are until a jury state otherwise.
So far this should seem pretty uncontroversial, if somebody is wrongly accused of an offence then they should be represented fairly. The issue is, how do we know who is wrongly accused? Because every person is technically innocent until a jury of 12 ordinary citizens decide otherwise. The fact of the matter is, we simply do not know. It is impossible to know, that is the entire point of a trial, to determine guilt or innocence. Everybody must therefore be given the same chance to argue their case and every person must be held innocent until proven otherwise.
Now let us imagine that you are a career criminal, you have committed 25 burglaries over your life, however, you have now taken a new path in life and are trying to move past crime; however, your next door neighbour is burgled and you are accused and charged. Do you deserve to be represented? You committed the other 25 so surely you MUST have committed this one? A jury may in fact be even more inclined to find you guilty based solely on this fact alone. It is clear to see how in such a case the defendant may be in even more need of legal representation than a person falsely accused for the first time. A person’s past mistakes should not mean they are tried without just cause or representation.
If we existed in a society that prevented people from receiving the best legal representation they need, no matter the cost, then a system develops where a person has charges added on that they did not commit, simply because the state can. A person can be accused of a crime that is similar in nature to offences they have committed in the past just so the state can make their conviction rate appear better. A person with severe mental illnesses can be charged, tried and sentenced for something they have no way of understanding. Evidence can be made-up, hidden or twisted in a way that leaves a defendant without a way to argue their case. If an individual does not have a lawyer, then anything could happen. In the same way that we do not allow individuals to operate on themselves when they require medical attention, we provide a trained surgeon via the NHS.
Even if you don’t believe that ‘bad’ people should have the same defence as ‘good’ people, you should still fight for legal aid. Imagine that a serial killer is accused of a 5th murder, imagine he did not actually commit the murder, but because he is ‘bad’ it does not matter and “he deserves the extra time in prison” and “he should not have committed the other 4 murders if he didn’t want to be labelled in such a way.” But, what about the 5th victim and their family, and their friends, and the public? If our serial killer is not represented and is found guilty, all because he is a ‘bad’ person, then the real killer is left to be free, the public are still at risk, the family never gets true justice. Lawyers must be able to defend ALL individuals from ALL accusations, otherwise, the ‘standard of proof’ is lessened for some offences and the state is able to more easily convince a jury to find a person guilty.
Empathy is a difficult emotion to display towards people who have been accused of awful crimes, but just imagine you are in their shoes and you didn’t commit the offence. You would want the best legal representation.
Accused does NOT mean guilty.
Being charged with an offence does NOT mean that the offence was committed by the person charged.
Going to court does NOT mean that what is said in that court is true.
Even if a person does the physical act that is stated, that does not mean they are guilty of a criminal offence. The law is a very complex thing. Legal practitioners’ study for at least 5 years to understand these issues and even then, it takes years to develop a high degree of understanding in a specific area.
EVERYBODY must have the best legal representation available to them otherwise it is a very steep slope towards an authoritarian regime where anybody can be found guilty simply by accusation. We must defend those who are most ‘undeserving’, we must defend those who are accused of committing the most heinous, evil and disgusting acts, we must defend the ‘indefensible’. To not do so allows for a slow, but sure, encroachment onto all of us. Today we become lax towards defending serial rapists, tomorrow we become lax towards defending mentally ill individuals, next week we become lax towards defending children accused of theft, next month we become lax towards defending whistle-blowers and political campaigners, next year we are unable to begin taking back our rights because we so fiercely argued to strip those we didn’t like of theirs.
On a final side note, legal aid is never a cash payment to the defendants themselves. It is simply the amount that all the work conducted by every person involved in the individuals case has come to; there is no transfer of funds to individuals charged with a crime.
Avaia Williams – Founder
*This blog was produced in response to several articles published by ‘The Sun’ and ‘The Daily Mail’ newspapers regarding legal aid, specifically the recent case surrounding PC Andrew Harper.
This blog was published on Monday 31st August
Nightingale Rights Initiative 