At the moment, you cannot get legal aid for actually being represented at a tribunal?Commissioners hearing etc - if you cannot find a LA/CAB/etc rep to assist you, you are on your own.

However, looking at the European Court ruling yesterday regarding the McDonalds libel case, the Court made the very valid point that on one side you had a mass of Barristers with unlimited access to the law etc, and on the other two lone individuals: a blatant example of an inequality of arms.

Given the complexity of the Benefits regulations, the weight of case law attached to them and the fact that the average claimant does not have access to the Regulations and/or Commissioners - Appeal Courts - House of Lords decisions - (unless they live near a major reference library, or are computer literate) - could this ruling be applied to Tribunals/Commissioners etc: in fact why shouldn't it?.

But surely tribunals are simple, informal procedures where no legal knowledge is necessary?

I suspect that the real difference is that they are inquisatorial and that 'fair trial' probably implies an adversarial process.

Gareth

Ah, but if it is that simple for a tribunal to arrive at a fair decision, how is it that a claim has to get to that stage in the first case? ....and without specialised advice based upon expert knowledge on the intricies of the law how may claimants would get that far on their own? the figures speak for themselves - 20% unrepresented cases win - of those that are represented, 60% win.

As we both know, Benefits regulations, and in particular DLA regs are wide open to interpretation and many have been almost rewritten over the years by Commissioners/Courts of Appeal/House of Lords etc. If it were that simple, there would be no jobs for welfare rights advisers: if it were that simple there would be little call for a site like Rightsnet, with all the technical discussion that takes place on it most days of the year.

The principle is equal access to the law - Tribunals are the one place where legal aid is not applicable - you can get it for a simple civil offence in a Magistrates court.....

On a final note - by way of example, I don't think an appeal against a living together decision,coupled with an alleged overpayment of £60000 as anything but simple.........

There was a smiley!

They're all getting at me, sob.

Very good question but isn't there one major difference?

Libel cases are adversarial.

Tribunal/Commissioners hearings are inquisitorial.

The point about equality of arms still stands of course.

I think I see where you are coming from with this one Mike - to play devils advocate, is there a fundamental difference in that the McLibel 2 couldn't get legal aid at all for the libel case, not prehearing or during the hearing, whereas with a case that goes to tribunal on social security benefits, you can get legal aid assistance about your case, except for the user-friendly tribunal hearing (and I use the term use friendly somewhat ironically).

Maybe worth running past someone at Public Law Project though - follow this link for more details.

And well done to the 2 of them for pursuing their case so vigourously and against such an opposition.

In theory it is possible to get Legal Aid for tribunal and Commissioners hearings. The Lord Chancellor has the power under S6(8)(b) of the Access to Justice Act 1999(I think) to grant Legal Aid in individual cases even though they would normally be excluded. The point was briefly discussed in CH/2155/2003, the defective HB claims decision. The CLS guidance suggests it would have to be an exceptional case for the power to be exercised.

The equality of arms point would seem to be the best ground for arguing that Legal Aid should be granted. In general, since the SofS makes only written submissions, to which we can prepare responses under Legal Help, there is already arguably equality.

I appreciate what you say about Legal Help, but only a percentage of claimants meet the criteria - (unless your centre offers assistance across the board) this was always the original arguement surrounding Legal aid contracts in the not for profit sector - half the population do not meet the income/savings rules.

Yes, but notwithstanding the ~55% of the population who are not eligible for legal aid, the two people involved in McLibel were within the eligiblity limits for receipt of legal aid - AFAIK, it was the nature of the action (libel), rather than anything else that prevented them being awarded legal aid.