Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on August 06, 2019, 05:16:18 PM
-
Makes sense to me. Sure there might be sensible objections. Just haven't heard them.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49251211
-
Makes sense to me. Sure there might be sensible objections. Just haven't heard them.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49251211
I was going to disagree with you on the grounds that it was an inquest, not a trial, but having thought about it, in any situation where you are allowed to hire a lawyer, I think you should be able to apply for legal aid if you can't afford a lawyer. The legal system is already skewed in the favour of people with deep pockets, we don't need to make it worse.
-
I was going to disagree with you on the grounds that it was an inquest, not a trial, but having thought about it, in any situation where you are allowed to hire a lawyer, I think you should be able to apply for legal aid if you can't afford a lawyer. The legal system is already skewed in the favour of people with deep pockets, we don't need to make it worse.
Yep, that's almost a word for word on how my thoughts went. And I can't see a way round where we aren't putting a monetary control on justice.
-
Just to note that inquests aren't just about findings made in the public interest. Yes in this case the lawyers were able to bring up questions about why there were no barriers on the bridge, and possibly a finding in the report will be that there should be more of them. That wouldn't help the families of the victims particularly but it could help others in the future. What inquests also do though is to describe the status of the deaths - eg, death by misadventure, unlawful killing etc - some of which can then open the way for legal actions against the responsible parties. In other words, while inquests themselves are fact-finding rather than adversarial, their conclusions may enable proceeding that are adversarial that wouldn't otherwise occur.