Hey, why should poor people have fair access before the law? Even worse, why should poor people who are accused of crimes – who are obviously criminals, or else why would they be charged by the police? I regularly see in our state’s Paper of Record (the Herald Sun) stories expressing outrage at the ghastly situation where I, as a taxpayer, am paying for some bad person (I assume they’re bad) to have fair representation before the courts. Honestly, every time I see one of those stories it makes me INCOHERENT WITH RAGE. (And I’m not the only one.)
So I’m glad to see that last night’s Budget continues the decline in legal aid funding. Lawyers predominantly doing legal aid work, whose incomes have “decreased by 25% to 40% over the past 15 years whilst other professions have increased 15% over the same period”, will continue to be driven out of the system into private and prosecutorial work. In addition to really screwing over poor people who are silly enough to be accused of a crime, it’ll save us a small amount of money.
Sure, it’s a false economy, as increased numbers of unrepresented litigants will significantly slow proceedings and decrease the ability of the courts to deal with matters efficiently, wasting a lot of court time on matters which are usually organised on its behalf by lawyers doing legal aid work – but that’s not the point.
The point is, poor people don’t deserve fair access to the courts. That’s why Legal Aid funding should continue to fall, why more people should be forced to share fewer lawyers.
The alternative – justice – is just too horrible to think about.
Disclaimer: I sometimes do legal aid work, but it’s getting closer to charity and further from being a way anyone could seriously earn a living.
Moved On 
Even worse are “human rights” tribunals which use extra-judicial means to inflict their wretched process on their targets, while paying for some ninny to have their hurt feelings vindicated.
In these kangaroo courts, the rules of evidence don’t apply and the standard of proof is minimal. The process is the punishment as successful litigants pay their own costs while the whinging complainant is often funded by the state.
These star chambers should be closed down.
Thanks for not launching completely off-topic there, SB.
I thought it was a similar issue. The kangaroo courts don’t pay for the accused’s representation either.
I’m not sure what you’re calling “kangaroo courts”.
Anyway, back to the topic of legal aid funding.
If the state is going to run a system of justice, a requirement is that the accused be able to defend themselves. I would have thought that if they are found innocent they should be able to recover costs they were compelled to pay to vindicate their innocence.
The same applies to persons accused of offences against political correctness who are dragged before quasi-judicial tribunals to be punished and re-educated.
Wonderful illogic from SB, as usual.
Let’s make sure that only peolple with money get legal representation. That’s bound to improve the quality of justice.
And if anyone if charged with horrible crimes, obviously yit’s just po-mo PC latte-sipping effete lefty madness to have the long-suffering tax-payer fun their legal rep – just boil them in oil and be done with it.
It seems you did not read what I actually said, Michael.
Not only should the state fund the defence of those charged, but those who contribute to their own costs should get their money back if found innocent. Is there something wrong with this?
Oh, I’m sorry, I thought you said, with your typical understatement, that,
“Even worse are “human rights” tribunals …..These star chambers should be closed down.”
Legal aid is available to however needs legal representation and meets the criteria……oh, that includes “persons accused of offences against political correctness who are dragged before quasi-judicial tribunals to be punished and re-educated“. ….. and sent to the work camps!
Your point, on those occassions when you actually have one, might get across better if one didn’t have to sift them from the hysterically over-blown ‘star-chamber/nazi’ stuff.
With Australia’s law schools turning out 3.4 lawyers for every non-lawyer (:P), shouldn’t there be some demand for the legal aid work available? ( I suppose this would mean the least able end up representing the poor.)
“I would have thought that if they are found innocent they should be able to recover costs they were compelled to pay to vindicate their innocence.”
Sound in principle I suppose, but if these defendants can’t afford the defense to start with, how would this help? Would you loan them the money? What if they were then found guilty?
“The same applies to persons accused of offences against political correctness who are dragged before quasi-judicial tribunals to be punished and re-educated.”
Because that happens all the time in the People’s Republic of Australia.
I’m a specialist Family Law solicitor (practicing since 1999) and legal aid funding is an absolute joke. When I was a first year solicitor in 2000, the other junior solicitor and i presented to the principals a memorandum regarding the disparity between our hourly rates (privately funded) and our legal aid rates. Voila! The firm ceased all legal aid work. I haven’t done any since, because its ridiculously uneconomical. Approximately 40% of Final Hearings in the Family Court / Federal Magistrates Court now have one or more undefended parties. THis vastly increases the use of Court time and public resources, making the legal aid cuts a classic false economy.