Paedophile victim sues LSC over ‘unmerited’ legal aid

  • Print
  • Comments (6)

Readers' comments (6)

  • The LSC should be required to behind all unsuccessful parties which it backs unless the successful party is and was compelled by law to be insured.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • That is so sad. Agree with Andrew above.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • i seem to recall that if you were legally aided under provisions which must have been under the old legal services act you had to inform the other party as soon as funding was granted as the legal aid certificate was open to challenge by the other party. The challenge could be made prior to trial on the grounds that it was not in the interests of justice etc. It was low bar but you had to provide notice.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "The woman was unaware that he had been awarded public funding until after her three-day case against him concluded."

    How could this possibly be the case? A legally aided party is obliged to serve notice on their opponent, so her solicitors must have known.

    Even if Haughton's solicitors failed to serve notice her solicitors must surely have investigated how his defence was being funded and what his financial position was before allowing this woman to incur over £100k in costs.

    If they didn't, I would take the view that they were negligent and/or in breach of their contract with her.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The whole idea of equitable justice is joke in UK-plc even under dysfunctional Access to Justice Act 1999, which in fact is the preserve of the Rich.

    No wonder the litigant in person is usually laughed out of the court in many civil matters due to apparent collusion of Judges with lawyers by so called closing of Ranks, and under procedural issues to public demise!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A three day case wouldn't cost £111k. Sounds more like her solicitors are annoyed that they're not getting their costs under a no win no fee. Haugton probably didn't have cover for sex offences liability on his home insurance.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (6)