Government accused of 'washing its hands' of couple denied legal aid in fight to keep son
THE GOVERNMENT has been accused of "washing its hands" of a couple fighting to stop their child being adopted after they were denied legal aid.
Sir James Munby, head of the Family Division, said it was "profoundly disturbing" that the parents failed to qualify for legal aid while also lacking enough money to pay for their own representation.
The couple, who both have learning difficulties, have opposed a recommendation by Swindon Borough Council for their two-year-old son to be put up for adoption.
However, they were denied legal aid when the father's monthly disposable income was found to be £34.64 over the £733 upper limit needed to qualify, according the the Law Society Gazette.
The couple are currently being represented bro bono by Rebecca Stevens of Withy King, who said it was "astonishing" that the state could refuse to help the couple.
Sir Munby has now said that he will rule that either the local authority, the legal aid fund or HM Courts and Tribunal Service should foot the bill.
He said: "Thus far the state has simply washed its hands of the problem, leaving the solution to the problem which the state itself has created – for the state has brought the proceedings but declined all responsibility for ensuring that the parents are able to participate effectively in the proceedings it has brought – to the goodwill, the charity, of the legal profession.
"This is, it might be thought, both unprincipled and unconscionable."
It's astonishing that the state can sanction a situation where a family’s human rights... have been breached
The Legal Aid Agency has reassessed the father's income and granted an emergency certificate to cover past hearings, but the situation for the future has not been resolved, Sir Munby said.
Ms Stevens, who has provided more than 100 hours pro bono to the case, told the Law Society Gazette: "It's astonishing that the state can sanction a situation where a family’s human rights – articles six and eight, right to a fair trial and right to a private and family life – have been breached.
"Also, although we acted pro bono, the firm still had to provide an indemnity if a costs order was made against us."
Andy Silvester of the Taxpayers' Alliance said the government needed to reassess the allocation of resources.
He said: "The cuts to legal aid have often been targeted poorly and have led to higher costs to the taxpayer in the long-term.
"There are plenty of savings to be made in the budget at the Justice Department, but legal aid is not where we should be looking to find them.
"We need to save money, but it has to be done in areas of wasteful spending, not essential services."
