Legal Aid – Why is Legal Aid Society Important?

A legal aid scheme exists to provide access to the legal system for many people who cannot afford a lawyer and can provide legal advice.

Imagine for a second you were transposed into the karmic-driven world of Earl. The purpose was to acquire a network of front-line centers that would work on individual issues and play a role in advocating for the public interest. The scheme was an integral part of the government’s vision for a more equitable social system to improve access to justice.

Legal Aid
Legal Aid

However, the vision was never realized. Since its inception, the Legal Purpose Scheme has relied heavily on lawyers in private practice, and thus the idea of ​​a paid case that lawyers based on a “shop front” has not materialized. The scope of the case, which was believed to be able to handle legal purposes, was limited, and salaried lawyers who were employed faced resistance from the private profession.

Legal Aid lawyer

The federal government is responsible for legal aids and maintains legal objectives in zones and states. Thus, the initiative to set up a primary legal aids service at the federal level has been transformed into a state-to-state integrated service in which people seek help in federal and state law matters in a single office. can. Significant increase in public funding for legal aids. Proceeds from solicitors’ trust accounts, support from collaborators, and commission costs.

In some parts of the Commonwealth, legal aids schemes derive additional sources of revenue from various models of legal aids schemes tested around the world. In some jurisdictions, the legal aid scheme is run by the private sector. In others, paid full-time legal aids lawyers have been urged. Australia combines the two methods.

From 1992 to 1993, the Legal Aid Commission paid 57.2% of its budget to private practitioners, although the percentage varied from state to state. There are benefits to having a paid lawyer as the basis for a legal aids scheme.

This gives lawyers a chance to master the areas of law that are most likely for the poor (although private practitioners may choose to do the same). In contrast, the problem of retaining marketable legal aid lawyers at higher salaries in the private sector must be addressed.

Legal aids schemes have two main functions, providing advice and providing assistance. Legal representation is subject to the cause test and merit test. It may only be available for specific categories of legal issues. Legally aided individuals may be asked to contribute, and expenses may be recovered from the proceeds of a successful legal claim.

The merit test requires that the applicant have a reasonable chance of success in the case. Legal aids and representation can also be provided to help people who have been charged with serious crimes and who appear in court without legal representation.

The priority in providing legal aid has traditionally been for defendants in criminal cases, especially in cases where imprisonment may be imposed. This priority of criminal cases was strengthened by the decision of the Australian High Court in Dietrich v R (1992).

The court said that if a poor person who is being tried on a serious criminal charge is unable to get legal representation without any fault on his part or his own, then the case should be adjourned or adjourned Until such representation is available.

Mason CJ and McHugh J acknowledged that this decision would likely require rearranging legal aid priorities until more government funding was made available to legal aids commissions. It lists 13 different situations in which the Family Court should order separate representation for child or child custody and access cases.

The effect of this decision will be that more representatives will be appointed than ever before. Because legal aid funds provide separate representation for children, the decision in Re K, as in the case of Dietrich, will affect the manner in which legal aids are allocated between eligible claimants.

This is a healthy development that the Nigerian Legal Aids Council considers if it is not to be left behind. However, the preference given to the defendants in criminal cases has a discriminating effect. Since most criminal defendants are male, and most applicants for legal aids in criminal cases are male, the majority of legal aid recipients are male.

In addition to criminal law, another area of ​​law that accounts for a large portion of legal aids costs in family law. While the right to legal representation should be taken seriously in criminal cases, it has been argued that the loss of custody of one’s children can be as significant to many women as the loss of liberty.

Another area where the provision of legal aid can be discriminatory is against women victims of domestic violence. In Nigeria, the police often do not receive protection orders from victims, and the complainant has a responsibility to bring his or her application, which is rare. The effect of legal aids may be that the government does more than provide legal assistance to victims of violent crime.

The Legal Aid Council has a big problem in prioritizing the limited resources among the various categories of needy claimants. Ultimately, the decisions that must be made are political decisions, including the relevant priorities of criminal law, family law, and other categories of cases, and to the extent that society will tolerate the denial of justice for claimants who seek legal redress. Cannot afford or defend themselves in legal proceedings without legal representation.

The current problems in providing adequate means of access to the legal system through legal aids then point out that questions need to be asked about the multiplication of laws, legal rights, and new tribulations in order to deal with social problems.

Each new set of legal rights will likely put more demands on legal services to enforce these titles and therefore further claims for legal aids will be made as long as the possibility of obtaining legal aids is ruled out. Don’t do it. Another side effect of creating new rights is that it increases the pressure on the judicial system, which increases the risk of delay in court hearings and increases the cost of providing courts and judges.

Leave a Comment