Afternoon:
15°c
Millionaire criminal suspects should not be entitled to legal aid to stop tens of millions of pounds being wasted, the former Director of Public Prosecutions said today.
Lord Macdonald said it was wrong that defendants with large properties, cars, yachts and other valuable assets were receiving state help to pay their court costs. His call was backed by former terrorism watchdog Lord Carlile of Berriew.
It came as proposals to cut £350million of legal aid spending are debated by peers in Parliament this week. The proposed reforms will remove or restrict legal aid in areas including clinical negligence, welfare, personal injury and divorce in changes that critics claim will hit the vulnerable and disadvantaged.
Wealthy suspects with large assets held under "restraint" by the courts will continue to qualify for state help, however, even if the value of their property totals millions of pounds. Ministers claim that the system is justified because legal aid payments can be recouped following a conviction.
But Lord Macdonald, who has tabled an amendment to the planned legislation calling for suspects' restrained assets to be used to meet their legal bills, said that in many cases wealthy criminals failed to pay.
He said that meant taxpayers were "subsidising" well off criminals and that millions of pounds of scarce public funds were being wasted.
Reader views (4)
Ed and typical ES wouldn't let comments be posted...they have become very sensitive which stories we can comment on lately....may as well do away with the comments thread if we can't comment on ALL stories ES....censoring your readers!!
- Realist, London, 12/01/2012 12:24
Report abuse
I'm not saying I know the answer (I don't!!!) - but don't some cases involve freezing assets of defendants? Kinda difficult to pay for a lawyer if you're not allowed to use your money. The only point of this comment is that nothing is cut and dried regarding blanket bans. This applies anywhere up and down the social/financial scales, I'd have thought.
- Rogan, Irving, 11/01/2012 22:14
Report abuse
'Shelina Akhtar, an independent councillor, pleaded guilty to three counts of dishonestly claiming housing and council tax benefits for a property in Poplar at Snaresbrook crown court on Monday'
Is this a typical case????????
- ED, LOndon, 11/01/2012 15:25
Report abuse
Thats common sense,so dont hold you breath waiting for MPs to understand it.
- dave, london, 11/01/2012 13:55
Report abuse
