No blank cheque
Sir: Your leader on legal aid (4 February) needs correction in two important respects.
First, the Maxwell brothers have not been given a blank cheque by the Legal Aid Board to spend what they want on their defence. Legal aid in criminal cases is granted by the courts and not by the Board.
Second, you say that in respect of an action against British Nuclear Fuels no one seems to have bothered to enquire as to whether the plaintiffs should have been given the chance of proving in court some- thing which was scientifically dubious out- side it. Any claim for civil legal aid has to meet certain tests before legal aid can be granted. One of those tests is that there should be a reasonable prospect of success in the proceedings. There is no such thing as a surefire winner in legal proceedings but judgments are made about likely suc-
cess and the benefits likely to arise from the litigation in relation to the cost of that litigation.
Incidentally, I also think you are incor- rect in alleging that Lord Mackay's current proposals for restricting the scope of legal aid tinker with its edges. Apart from the fact that he has not suggested any restric- tions in scope, what will emerge from a cash-limited and block-funded scheme based upon quality assurance will be radi- cally different from what is currently in place, and will allow an effective targeting of funds to where they are really needed.
S. M. Orchard
Chief Executive, Legal Aid Board, 85 Gray's Inn Road, London WC1
Previous page
