Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat) 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

The problem is that my noble friend the Minister has not explained why people are allowed recklessly to dissipate criminal assets in civil cases. Why do you have one rule for civil cases, when you can use what are described as criminal assets although they are not necessarily so, and another rule in criminal cases? What is happening at the moment is that defendants are recklessly dissipating legal aid. That is the point and that is why legal aid is so high in criminal cases—it is being recklessly dissipated. My noble friend Lord Carlile explained how it can be done: you can have application after application; you can have little trials within trials; you can have satellite litigation; the case can run on and on for months. In the old Stafford Assize Court, which possibly the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has visited—


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
734 c1030 
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