In your interview (‘Legal aid can’t be a bottomless pit. We had to cut it’, Society, 30 January), Lord McNally says the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act legislation was not meant to be so draconian and that it was intended to direct people away from the instinct to be “too litigious”.
Other policies promoted by the coalition government include the “hostile environment” developed by the Home Office and the welfare reform programme. Both have led to state-sanctioned destitution. What better way to minimise challenges to these policies than to remove immigration cases and welfare benefit challenges from the scope of legal aid?
There can be no justification of this on the basis of a desire to reduce litigiousness. Those on the receiving end of unlawful decisions about their welfare benefits or their right to be in the UK do not want to litigate or have their day in court; they want to get on with their lives without the threat of destitution and deportation.
The government was told when consulting on Laspo what the effect would be and cannot now claim the impact was unintended. Laspo has been a disaster, particularly in removing early advice and assistance from the scope of legal aid. Prompt help for those with legal problems plays an important role in avoiding litigation and encouraging settlement, as well as securing people’s rights. Let us hope that at least this is recognised when the Laspo review is finally published.
Diane Astin
Brunel University, Uxbridge
• Afua Hirsch (If it’s done on the cheap, it’s not justice, 30 January) hits several nails on the head regarding court closures. We discovered, when challenging the closure of High Peak magistrates court, that we were “low-hanging fruit”. It’s hard campaigning to keep such a service because, as her article concludes, it is “one of the dangers voters care least about”. Most people don’t expect to have to appear in court, so why commit to save it?
Interestingly she highlights the small amount raised so far in selling off the buildings. The Buxton court is still empty as it belongs to Derbyshire county council. Underused courts as mentioned in the article, are clearly the knock-on effects of the staffing cuts she also highlighted. Magistrates have to travel further, increasing travel costs, and some have retired early as a result. Cheap is not cheerful nor justice.
Christine Walters
Retired magistrate, Buxton
• Government justice policy needs to be called out for what it is: a further concerted attack on the poor. The government does not appear to collect information regarding the social class of those in our criminal courts, but a trip there will leave you in little doubt. The cuts to legal aid removed one of the vital checks and balances in a system already weighted against the disadvantaged. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that, for this government, offenders are the “undeserving poor” so why waste money on them?
Peter Jeffries
Canterbury
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
• Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition
