English lawyers yesterday moved to contain damage to the reputation of the country’s legal aid system following revelations that the public purse footed a £680,000 bill for the defence of an Egyptian alleged terror suspect who was recently extradited to the US.
The Law Society – which represents the more than 120,000 solicitors in England and Wales – said it would liaise with the British government to increase public understanding of how the system works.
However, it also sounded a warning that legal aid had already been through a recent profound review and that another shake-up of the fragile system was not needed.

Fundamentalist

At the heart of the issue is the legal wrangling over the extradition of Abu Hamza, the Islamic fundamentalist accused by US authorities of being connected with terror group al-Qadea. The case dragged through the English and European courts for eight years before he was extradited last month.
The bill for Abu Hamza’s defence emerged earlier this week when UK newspaper The Daily Mail published the results of a Freedom of Information Act request. According to the London-based weekly, the Law Gazette, following publication of the figure, Britain’s justice secretary Chris Grayling ordered an immediate review of the legal aid system.

Limited resources

The Gazette quotes a statement from Mr Grayling recognising that legal aid is a fundamental part of the British legal system, but pointing out that ‘resources aren’t limitless’ and should be ‘reserved for cases where there is genuine need’.

According to the newspaper, the justice secretary went on to say: ‘The total costs in some cases seem very high and many, myself included, will question whether they provide value for money. I am concerned about public confidence in the legal aid system. I have ordered an immediate examination of aspects of the system that affect its credibility with the public.’ A Law Society spokesman told the Gazette in response: ‘Cases which become notorious are, by their nature, exceptional. While some of these seem particularly costly, the vast majority of legal aid cases involve ordinary people, hard working, vulnerable or unfortunate, who otherwise simply would not be able to afford to pay.’