Legal Aid is the system which allows people to have their legal fees paid from a central fund and effectively allow them to get free legal advice and representation.

Justice Minister David Ford has put forward the proposal to recover legal aid costs from defendants in the crown court cases which result in a guilty verdict and where those convicted can be shown to be able to afford to pay the costs.

Mr Ford said the proposals would target those who can afford to pay, not those who couldn’t.

The proposals have been stood out for consultation until 27 April 2012.

“Legal aid costs in Northern Ireland are amongst the highest in the UK and I am determined to reduce spending where possible,” Mr Ford said.

“I believe that where there are defendants in the Crown Court who can afford to pay for the costs of their defence they should be required to do so upon conviction.”

Mr Ford, last year, said he wanted to cut the NI Legal Aid budget from £100m to £75m over a 3 year period. This resulted in a strike by solicitors in NI which was eventually resolved by the Law Society, the Bar Council and Department of Justice.

Lib Dem members voted in the motion calling for more detailed consideration of reform to legal aid, in response to Government plans to do away with many aspects of the free legal advice system.

Tom Brake, Co-chair of the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Committee on Home Affairs, Justice and Equalities, said:

“Today Liberal Democrats reasserted the belief that a properly funded legal aid system where access to justice is not denied to those who can’t afford it is the mark of a civilised and democratic society.”

“We want to ensure that the potential impacts of cuts are fully assessed before they are introduced, the legal aid budget doesn’t bear costs which should fall elsewhere in the system.”

The motion asserts that access to justice is “an essential component” of the human and civil rights, and remains a condition of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The motion asks for “full consideration, assessments and trials … as to any proposed changes or reductions before they are introduced”, specifically looking at addressing administrative costs of the justice system and alternative funding methods.

In many cases solicitors may recommend that After the Event (ATE) Insurance is taken out to protect you against costs. Costs are separate to fees and can also cover the solicitor’s fees for the person or company you are claiming off of.

If ATE is taken up you do not have to purchase this and the solicitor will purchase the policy for you. Solicitors then recover the cost of this policy from the opposing side and, again, regardless of outcome you will not be out of pocket.

The other benefit to a “no win, no fee” arrangement is that you will have peace of mind, knowing that your solicitor will be doing the best job possible because without a victory they will not be paid.

You can find solicitors who specialise in this field by using local directories or you can use services that provide free legal advice online from specialist solicitors.

Justice secretary Ken Clarke said during a reading of the bill that the Ministry of Justice was considering a ban.

However, the Legal Services Board has refused to lend support to an outright ban and this has drawn criticism from areas like the Law Society and Jack Straw, a former justice secretary.

Straw has been openly critical of insurance providers for making profits from referrals that lead to conditional fee arrangements.

The current Justice Minister, Jonathan Djanogly said:

“Referral fees are one symptom of the compensation culture problem and too much money sloshing through the system.”

“People are being encouraged to sue, at no risk to themselves, leaving schools, business and individuals living in fear of being dragged to the courts for simply going about daily life.”

“We will ban referral fees and we will go further. We have proposals before parliament to end the bizarre situation in which people have no stake in the legal costs their cases bring. This will make claimants think harder about whether to sue and give insurance companies and business generally an incentive to pass the savings onto customers through lower prices.”

The ban on these fees is likely to see an uptake in the consume needing free legal advice from solicitors.
There are currently online services where you can speak to a solicitor for free.

In the UK the vast majority of medical practitioners perform their wok in a high quality fashion but mistakes and negligence can and does occur.

If you have been in the medical of someone and suffered an injury due to the actions or inactions of a practitioner then you might be able to lodge a compensation claim. Solicitors can advise you on this.

Medical negligence covers a wide sphere and includes but is not limited to:

• Delay in care or diagnosis
• Incorrect diagnosis
• Injury
• Infection
• Neglect
• Surgical and prescription errors
• Child birth

Assessing and valuing a claim is dependent on many factors which can include severity of injury, level of negligence, life implications and how it affects you and your family.

These types of claim are, more often than not, complicated and time consuming. If you are considering a medical negligence claim it is vital that you seek advice from a solicitor or you can use an online service to ask a solicitor a question for free.

The latest reported case shows that Kirklees Council may be in the position of defending or settling a claim made by a 67 year old lady after she tripped on a poor quality pavement.

It has been reported by the Huddersfield Examiner that Jennifer Wrigley tripped on a pothole on the pavement surface in Heaton Road. When her foot went into the hole she twisted her ankle, lost balance and fell which resulted in a broken wrist. The wrist injury has required surgery and metal plating.

Mr Wrigley, Jennifer’s husband, is a former company owner and his company trade was health and safety. He is holding he council responsible as it is their responsibility to maintain the pavement which has been described as a “minefield” due to its holed appearance and potential risk.

People who are injured in such accidents can make compensation claims and it has been reported that Mrs Wrigley is pursuing such a claim. If you have suffered a similar fall it would be advisable to consult a solicitor to see if you have a claim or use an online service to obtain free legal advice.

Ms Spalding, 40 years old, was out with friends and at the Love2Love nightclub when she fell. She states the cause of the fall was a slippery dance floor and that this caused her to break her left wrist, an injury which she later discovered needed surgery to fix completely.

She has also had much physiotherapy on the injury but still suffers pain on an ongoing basis and this has led to depression.

Ms Spalding initiated legal action against the owners of the club, CFG leisure Group LTD and is asking for £100,000 in damages. The group deny responsibility and say that she should have exercised “reasonable care” for her own safety and security.

CFG were previously trading as 3D Entertainment but that company went into voluntary liquidation in 2009. However, 3D was never dissolved so the complaint that Ms Spalding launched has been allowed to proceed.

If claims are proven on the balance of probabilities then compensation can be paid out. There are specialist solicitors who can assess and execute compensation claims as well as online services where you can ask a solicitor a question for free.

The married father was disposing of garden waste when the vehicle, which was fitted with a shovel, crushed him against a wall causing fatal injuries in the spine and chest. The vehicle was being driven by a waste centre employee who did not see the man and was not totally aware of the vehicle position.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigated the incident and discovered several things that contributed to the tragedy which included:

• Lack of signage
• Poor vehicle operation
• Poor direction of vehicle traffic
• Insufficient staff
• Lack of safety procedures
• No appropriate risk assessment

Based on this the HSE prosecuted the company and following admissions of liability the company were fined a 6 figure sum.

The deceased man’s family also launched a compensation claim through specialist solicitors. In addition to the identified failings it was also discovered that the company had had a similar incident at another site that they operated.

The company admitted liability in respect of this claim and have made an interim payment of compensation to the family. Clearly no amount of money can replace a family member but sudden deaths can leave families in a financially precarious position.

If you have been affected by serious injury or a family death because of another’s negligence then you could be eligible to make a compensation claim. It would be advisable to seek advice from a solicitor or you could use an online service to obtain free legal advice.

The police force said they were internally investigating how the 2009 case was handled.

Mr Richardson also demanded that his fingerprints, photograph and DNA be destroyed as well as any record on the Police National Computer being removed or amended to accurately reflect the situation.

Mrs Justice Slade agreed with the illegality of his detention but refused the demands in relation to Police records stating that “take it properly into account when making any decision as to a request by the claimant for destruction or removal.”

The general secretary for NASUWT, Chris Keates, said she planned to make requests for national procedures in instances like this to be changed so spurious allegations do not affect a professional teacher’s or child worker’s career.

Chris Keates, general secretary of the NASUWT, told the BBC she planned to write to the secretary of state for education and the home secretary to ask for modifications to national procedures.

“This is a landmark decision for teachers and others who are vulnerable to allegations made by children and young people.

“New guidance for police is needed urgently to prevent these needless arrests that wreck innocent people’s careers.”

“Teachers are vulnerable to allegations made by pupils.”

“Such allegations frequently involve police investigation.”

“The overwhelming majority prove to be false but teachers are often deeply traumatised and their career is blighted.”

The arrest of Mr Richardson arose from an incident in 2009 where a pupil alleged assault. Mr Richardson maintained that the pupil actually walked into his (Mr Richardson’s) arm which was outstretched towards a swinging door.

A complaint was lodged against Mr Richardson in December 2009 at the school in the West Midlands.

Amazingly, it was the school authorities who pursued the case and not the pupil’s parents. Mr Richardson went to the Bloxwich and Walsall Police station on a voluntary basis but was arrested and detained under Police and Criminal Evidence Act procedures.

Despite the criminal investigation no criminal charges were authorised.
The Court heard that as a result of the incident:

“The claimant doubts whether he would be able to gain promotion due to a record of arrest on his Enhanced Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check.
“He is obliged to provide his employer with a CRB check every three years.
“He is also concerned as to the effect of the record of his arrest on his future employability.”

A spokesman for West Mids. Police said:

“Following the court ruling West Midlands Police will launch an internal investigation into this matter to review the circumstances of the arrest and handling of the case.”

“The findings of this investigation will be considered along with any recommendations that arise from it.”

“Until this is completed it would be inappropriate to comment on today’s ruling or the case in question.”

The right to freedom is covered by the Human Rights Act and Police must adhere to very strict rules when arresting someone. If you feel you have been wrongfully detained or arrested you should consult a solicitor.
You can also use an online service to ask a solicitor a question for free.

Mr Dahlstrom was placing bags of clay onto the conveyor belt that fed the machine and he was pulled into a narrow gap between the belt and another belt above. This process was designed to crush the clay but instead crushed Mr Dahlstrom.

This caused a multitude of injuries to his head and body and left him unable to work for over a year.

The Health and Safety Executive investigated and prosecuted Imerys Minerals who were ordered to pay £45,000 in legal costs and fined £30,000 also following admissions to not complying with the Health and Safety at Work Act.

It was the opinion of the HSE inspector, Jo Fitzgerald, that these injuries would not have occurred if the company had lived up to its responsibilities.

If you have been injured because of employer negligence or failings you could be entitled to make a compensation claim. You should consider consulting a solicitor or use an online service to ask a solicitor a question for free.