Paedophile victim sues LSC over ‘unmerited’ legal aid
A paedophile victim who was unable to recover compensation from her alleged attacker because he was granted legal aid is suing the Legal Services Commission (LSC) over the decision to award him the funding.
The victim said she was left having to pay legal costs of more than £111,000 for a successful private claim against convicted sex offender John Haughton. She has also not been able to recover her court-awarded damages of £32,293.
According to the claim the LSC awarded Haughton a “public funding certificate enabling him to pursue an unmeritorious defence at no expense to himself, but at the claimant’s expense”.
The claimant said Haughton, who was found guilty of attacking two other underage girls, should never have received the “shield of a public funding certificate” as he was unlikely to win.
The woman was unaware that he had been awarded public funding until after her three-day case against him concluded.
Readers' comments (6)
Andrew | 3-Oct-2011 4:50 pm
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
Anonymous | 4-Oct-2011 4:45 am
That is so sad. Agree with Andrew above.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 4-Oct-2011 8:21 am
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
Rural bliss | 5-Oct-2011 6:39 pm
"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
Anonymous | 5-Oct-2011 9:08 pm
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
Anonymous | 7-Oct-2011 7:38 pm
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