One of the most experienced McKenzie Friends of the country sent me the link to this case, after having read our submission to the High Court to address ‘the substance’ of Melissa’s case:
Lack of legal aid to defend libel proceedings that led to a long and complex trial breached defendants’ right to a fair trial under Article 6(1). It’s actually the famous case of the two campaigners who took “US McDonalds” on. The result was a compensation payment. We want first the boy and then compensation. For that we need ‘disclosure’ of a few more critical documents.
Melissa suffered not only from not getting legal aid for a family lawyer, but also from outright denial of legal representation by the same judge who decided that the “welfare of the child requires dispensing with the mother’s consent to adoption“.
She also decided that ‘contact’ with the child was up to the discretion of Barnet Council. They never arranged for a single meeting with the boy in HMP Holloway and now refuse Skype contact.
How perfidious and hypocritical can people in institutions become – when it’s all supposed to be “in the best interest of the child”!???
- Complex fraud trial threatened as barristers decline work at reduced rate (theguardian.com)
- Legal aid cuts criticised after underspend (theguardian.com)
- Critics of legal aid cuts force Law Society vote (theguardian.com)
- Leading UK barristers criticise legal aid fee reforms (voiceofrussia.com)
- Ministry of Justice proposals for competitive tendering (blasermills.co.uk)
- LEGAL AID lawyer, secret courts and social workers collude(d) to adopt (two) boys (punishmentwithoutcrime.wordpress.com)
- We are trying to reform legal aid, not destroy it (telegraph.co.uk)