Pure Public Interest Cases – without benefit from the litigation – don’t deserve legal aid funding

With his judgment in May 2011, Lord Justice Laws has made “an important victory for the rule of law”:

 “For the State to inhibit litigation by the denial of legal aid because the court’s judgment might be unwelcome or apparently damaging would constitute an attempt to influence the incidence of judicial decisions in the interests of government … frankly inimical to the rule of law.”

Let’s hope we can step in the footsteps of this definition of ‘public interest’:

no personal benefit from the litigation.

This is certainly true in all the child snatching cases that I have been publishing…

Advertisements

About Sabine Kurjo McNeill

I'm a mathematician and system analyst formerly at CERN in Geneva and became an event organiser, software designer, independent web publisher and online promoter of Open Justice. My most significant scientific contribution is www.smartknowledge.space
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Pure Public Interest Cases – without benefit from the litigation – don’t deserve legal aid funding

  1. earthlinggb says:

    And yet this very statement by Judge Laws reflects, to a degree, what is happening in the “shaming” of judges in your previous post from the Daily Express. It actually supports my comments entirely. If they can’t influence the judicial decisions then they attack the judges and have them removed so that all judicial decisions are made the way the government wishes them to be made. That Express article is transparent Sabine and you, again, are refusing to see it just as you are refusing to see what you refer to as the “Common law” “game”(? – a GAME????).
    I sense you have your “gold dust” and since you are getting the attention of these MPs (the “gold-dust”) you certainly do not wish to challenge them do you? You spoke of British people not having guts to stand up for their rights YET what you are doing is playing somewhat sycophantically to these MPs by not challenging them on points which they are all too willing to ignore to keep the status quo. What good is that going to do the people you are saying you are trying to help? None!

    You’re scared to lose the attention of the MPs. MPs who have admitted they are all but impotent to help. They go through the motions. They will set up committees and they will TALK. These committees will go on and on and on. Nothing will result – at least nothing of REAL worth. Why? Because the committees and judicial reviews all work within the existing paradigm and rules and you won’t challenge. Yet challenging would result in some REAL change. If the judiciary and government recognised that we know what GAME they are playing!

  2. D Pugh says:

    This judgement is to ensure more gravy for lawyers.

    Don’t forget the judiciary et al are complaining about more LiP’s as a result of legal aid restrictions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s