Geoffrey Bindman examines the perils of going without lawyers
The severe reduction in legal representation threatened by the ironically named Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill will force many people to go to court without it or forego the prospect of redress for legitimate grievances. The government itself accepts that at least 500,000 more people will be excluded by the proposed legal aid cuts than are already disqualified. It seems obvious to lawyers that legal representation is no mere luxury, but a necessary condition of a fair outcome in most disputes. Yet, it may be that there are members of the public, and certainly some politicians, who view this claim with the scepticism with which they regard the potentially self-serving claims of most professions. Highly qualified judges are there to see that justice is done, the sceptics might say. Why have expensive lawyers as well? The judge can make sure that all relevant information is brought before the court. We lawyers, of course, know that life is not so simple.
Saved from hanging
The litigant in person is hardly
