Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh
from the sky news site
this is probably why they are getting legal aid , as far as i know legal aid is means tested ,any one of us would not be allowed to use top ranking barristers on legal aid why are they ? the barristers will probably want this case for the publicity but shouldn't someone be able to step in and say "no you can't then you will have to get a cheaper one"
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...10/8616261.stm
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BBC News
(snip)
BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said that officials applied the "interests of justice" test to determine whether the MPs should receive legal aid.
The test says if a defendant is at risk of losing his or her liberty - that is, they could go to prison if convicted - then they are entitled to legal representation paid for by the state.
The "interests of justice" test began to be phased out in January to be replaced by a means test for all Crown Court cases in England and Wales - but Southwark Crown Court is not yet part of the new scheme, so it did not apply to the MPs.
Justice Minister Jack Straw told the BBC: "It is simply a matter of chance that [the means test] is yet to be introduced in Southwark, where the former MPs are being tried.
"Decisions about legal aid are made by the courts, and MPs and ministers have no control over the award of legal aid in individual cases."
However, if the MPs are convicted the trial judge could order them to pay back all or some of the costs of the case.
|
I do think it's disgusting though. Not just the legal aid, but also the claim that parliamentary privilege could be used as a protection.