Does Suella have a point?

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
That would be after they have received legal aid. It does not explain how you'd deny those prior to a trial?

Did you read the article I posted above? I'm referring to that sort of case, surely that's obvious?
 
Well I clearly did need it, as I was unable to pursue a case of a blatent breach of my rights.
You are not making any sense at all. So you didn't have a case or a court date or a prosecution?

What was your legal gripe? Why were you ineligible?
 
You are not making any sense at all. So you didn't have a case or a court date or a prosecution?

What was your legal gripe?

I was held by police and refused access to a solicitor.
 
No, I want it to be FAIR...
Fair is good...

But tell that to the tories who have cut the percentage of those eligible for legal aid from the original 80% of the population when set up to less than 25%...

It has been estimated that it would take just under £1bn a year to put the eligibilty level up to 50%...

Meanwhile...

Linky

Personally I believe that there should be a minimum level of legal aid for everyone, and should anyone wish for more expensive representation then they pay for it themselves...

But of course the tories don't care about justice for anybody except themselves and their rich chums!
 
I trust you have made an official complaint . The result ?

Nothing... It was Police Scotland's policy at the time, even though it was in breach of human rights. Some people successfully sued them, I could not
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top