In message , Andrew McGee
writes
>
>I am appalled that we have reached a point where a defendant in a POCA
>confiscation hearing (who has to have Legal Aid because he is not
>allowed to use his own funds to pay for lawyers) is left unrepresented
>because the money on offer is so poor.
The obvious answer, which the representative groups argued for at the
time, is to let people in this situation use their own assets to pay for
the legal representation they need, and the State should butt out of it.
This is not, strictly speaking, legal aid. It is a provision that the
confiscated assets can be used for these cases, but only at rates
equivalent to legal aid rates. I do not see what business it is of the
State to set the rates payable in a private contract between an
individual and their solicitor.
Then as an entirely separate issue there is the fact that legal aid
rates, particularly for general criminal work, are grossly inadequate.
--
Richard Miller |