Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Pannick (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 24 January 2012. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.


Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment for all the reasons set out by the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Carlile of Berriew. I add one further factor. The criteria set out in this amendment are so tightly defined that it is highly probable that in any case falling within those criteria, where one party is not legally represented, the tribunal or the court—particularly the Appeal Court—would consider it wholly inappropriate to determine the issue before it without requesting the Attorney-General to appoint what used to be known as an amicus curiae, now friend of the court, at public expense. It is much more desirable, with that public expense, for the individual to be represented rather than to have his or her case presented through a friend of the court. Again, the saving is entirely illusory.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
734 c971-2 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disability Disclosure of information Compensation Criminal proceedings Appeals Assets Advocacy Criminal injuries compensation Legal profession Employment Finance Fees and charges Legal aid scheme Eligibility Injuries Discrimination Evictions Local government NHS Negligence Social security Sentencing Tribunals Sexual offences Telephone services Travellers Remand in custody Police stations Citizens' advice bureaux Law centres
Legislation
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk