Why didn’t they get legal aid to fight for son?

THE judge in the Charlie Gard case yesterday questioned why the parents had been given no legal aid.

Mr Justice Francis said he found their lack of state funding ‘remarkable’ as he could not think of a situation more ‘profound’.

Postman Chris Gard and carer Connie Yates were unable to work for several months while keeping vigil at their son’s bedside in Great Ormond Street Hospital.

Fortunately law firm Bindmans stepped in to represent them for free. By law, a couple cannot receive legal aid if they have more than £30,804 pre-tax income, £8, 96 disposable income and £8,000 savings and assets.

Last night Bob Neill, chairman of the Com- mons justice committee, said that it was ‘extraordinary’ the family might not have qualified.

He called for the rules to be made more flexible and said: ‘To apply an ungenerous means test in effect without any regard to the nature of the case and evidence required isn’t fair.

‘The way [legal aid] has been pared back in recent years has gone beyond what is reasonable and it only leads to injustice.’

After ruling that Charlie’s life support could be switched off, Mr Justice Francis said: ‘I just want to raise this finally, the question of legal aid. Why weren’t the family given legal aid in this case?

‘As I understand it, neither of them is working because they’ve dedicated the last eight months to their son.

‘It seems to me remarkable that in a public law care case, where some people get non-means tested legal aid ... I can’t think of anything more profound than what the parents are facing here.’

A family legal representative said he did not ‘have an answer’ to why they had not been offered legal aid. A Ministry of Justice spokesman said it did not comment on individual cases.