Why didn’t sick baby’s parents qualify for legal aid?
THE fact that Charlie’s parents didn’t qualify for legal aid against the hospital that wanted to end their child’s life was absurd, the judge in the case said yesterday.
Mr Justice Francis said MPs had made a mistake when they reformed legal aid.
Parents can have legal aid if social workers apply to take their child away, but not if doctors want to end life-support.
Charlie’s parents have been fortunate because lawyers have represented them for free, or ‘pro bono’. But Mr Justice Francis said: ‘When Parliament changed the law in relation to legal aid, it cannot have intended that parents in the position that these parents have been in should have no access to legal advice or representation.’
He said to ‘most like-minded people’ the NHS was as much an arm of the state as a local authority, adding: ‘I can think of few more profound cases than ones where a trust is applying to the court for a declaration that a life-support machine should be switched off in respect of a child.’
He thanked Charlie’s lawyers for working pro bono, but said: ‘I am aware that there are many parents around the country in similar positions where their cases have been less public and where they have had to struggle to represent themselves.
‘I cannot imagine that anyone ever intended parents to be in this position.’ By law, a couple cannot receive legal aid if they earn more than £30,804 in pre-tax income or have at least £8,7 6 in disposable income and £8,000 savings and assets.
Bob Neill, chairman of the Commons justice committee, said it was ‘extraordinary’ that Charlie’s parents did not qualify, adding: ‘To apply an ungenerous means test in effect without any regard to the nature of the case and evidence required isn’t fair.’