Protest for Justice Scotland

[Rights Fighter]

http://protestforjustice.org.uk/inde...-is-this-about

The Scottish Government is passing new legislation changing how Criminal Legal Aid works. The main concerns are about people who will now have to pay a contribution for this legal aid: who will have to pay, and how these payments are dealt with.

1. Contributions will be charged for anyone with a "disposable income" (which has not been defined) of £68 per week OR have £750 in savings.
   
   In effect this will include most, if not all, people in any form of employment. We think this figure is too low.
   
   
2. If you plead not guilty you will be asked to pay a larger contribution (possibly twice as much) than if you plead guilty.
   
   
3. If you are acquitted, you will not receive a refund of your contribution payment
   
   In England, which already has contributions for Criminal Legal Aid, these are only chargeable if you are convicted of a crime. If you are not guilty, you don't have to pay them.
   
   
4. Your Solicitor, not the Scottish Legal Aid Board, will be required to collect your contribution from you (and hand this over to SLA.
   
   This means that there is an incentive for the Solicitor not to deal with your case until you have paid this. If you cannot afford to pay the contribution, the Solicitor is not obliged to continue acting for you, and you will have no lawyer. Or your Solicitor can choose to act for you on a "charity" basis, but obviously if they do this a lot they will soon be out of business!
   
   
   If, as would seem logical, SLAB were to collect contributions, your Solicitor would be able to focus solely on your case not your money, while you would deal directly with SLAB to arrange payments over a period of time that you could afford.
   
   

We consider that these changes will cause injustice to people in Scotland. The savings that the Scottish Government hope to make from these are comparatively small, and they have claimed that changing any element of their proposals could reduce these further voiding any benefit of the changes. It has been pointed out that these savings are the equivalent of: a few hundred yards of the Edinburgh Trams; about half the salaries of the MSPs (excluding expenses); the cost of the new Security porch on the Holyrood building; or a tiny percentage of the Glasgow City Council social work budget. This does not mean we are against making savings, but that the amount of savings is disproportionate to the harm that they will cause to ordinary members of the public, and if changing these proposals reduces the savings made then it is necessary to look elsewhere for these.


There have been various misconceptions about this protest, and these are dealt with in Scotching the Myths.

• Next >

RF: This is already happening in England and Wales

[lawlessone2009]

http://protestforjustice.org.uk/inde...-is-this-about

The Scottish Government is passing new legislation changing how Criminal Legal Aid works. The main concerns are about people who will now have to pay a contribution for this legal aid: who will have to pay, and how these payments are dealt with.

1. Contributions will be charged for anyone with a "disposable income" (which has not been defined) of £68 per week OR have £750 in savings.
   
   In effect this will include most, if not all, people in any form of employment. We think this figure is too low.
   
   
2. If you plead not guilty you will be asked to pay a larger contribution (possibly twice as much) than if you plead guilty.
   
   
3. If you are acquitted, you will not receive a refund of your contribution payment
   
   In England, which already has contributions for Criminal Legal Aid, these are only chargeable if you are convicted of a crime. If you are not guilty, you don't have to pay them.
   
   
4. Your Solicitor, not the Scottish Legal Aid Board, will be required to collect your contribution from you (and hand this over to SLA.
   
   This means that there is an incentive for the Solicitor not to deal with your case until you have paid this. If you cannot afford to pay the contribution, the Solicitor is not obliged to continue acting for you, and you will have no lawyer. Or your Solicitor can choose to act for you on a "charity" basis, but obviously if they do this a lot they will soon be out of business!
   
   
   If, as would seem logical, SLAB were to collect contributions, your Solicitor would be able to focus solely on your case not your money, while you would deal directly with SLAB to arrange payments over a period of time that you could afford.
   
   

We consider that these changes will cause injustice to people in Scotland. The savings that the Scottish Government hope to make from these are comparatively small, and they have claimed that changing any element of their proposals could reduce these further voiding any benefit of the changes. It has been pointed out that these savings are the equivalent of: a few hundred yards of the Edinburgh Trams; about half the salaries of the MSPs (excluding expenses); the cost of the new Security porch on the Holyrood building; or a tiny percentage of the Glasgow City Council social work budget. This does not mean we are against making savings, but that the amount of savings is disproportionate to the harm that they will cause to ordinary members of the public, and if changing these proposals reduces the savings made then it is necessary to look elsewhere for these.


There have been various misconceptions about this protest, and these are dealt with in Scotching the Myths.

• Next >

RF: This is already happening in England and Wales

Good bit of info.

I still cannot understand the reasoning behind this.

It's a state run prosecution system prosecuting state crimes on behalf of the state. Everyone apart from the defence team is paid by the state and generally even the defence team is also paid by the state.

If they want a large increase in the number of people representing themselves and completely grinding 'justice' to a halt then it's a great idea. I will be able to speed more often in the knowledge that the likelyhood of a prosecution never mind a conviction is very very slim.

It's a silly idea and a step too far.

[Izzy]

It's all down to money as usual There are also plans to close quite a few smaller courts.

[Izzy]

Was approved yesterday. Tories tabled an amendment - which was not accepted - to provide refunds for people who had contributed to their legal aid but are later cleared.