Thread by @BarristerSecret

Gutter journalism. #FakeLaw.

1. This man was not “handed” £2.5m. This is a lie. That was the overall cost of legal aid in long-running serious criminal proceedings. This is like saying someone who receives a NHS heart transplant is “given” the cost of the operation.

2. Readers are invited to conclude that £2.5m is too much to spend on this case. The journalist has not bothered to tell you any of the context that you would need to even *begin* to assess whether that cost is too high, too low, or about right. Such as...

3. How much of that figure includes VAT, which goes to the Treasury? How many lawyers & support staff worked on the case? What work was involved? How many hours, days, months went into this extremely serious case where the defendant was looking at a potential life sentence?

4. £2.5m sounds like a lot out of context. But the figures are gross, not net. Solicitors’ firms have staff to pay, business costs, rent, insurance, tax etc. Likewise barristers. When all that is broken down, what is the actual *profit* for these professionals?

5. What is the hourly rate? How does that compare to the hourly rate of other professionals? What does this Sun journalist suggest *should* be paid to the most highly experienced professionals in their fields dealing with the most serious criminal cases?

6. Because this is is what it boils down to: if you are going to run a “news” story claiming legal aid is “doled out”, implying waste and excess, you should be able to give full context to show why it’s too much, and what sum would have been reasonable.

7. The journalist doesn’t explain how legally aid is strictly regulated. How, for instance, anybody with a disposable annual household (i.e. joint) income of over £37,500 does not qualify for a penny of legal aid, and cannot reclaim their full costs *even if acquitted*.

8. The take-home message is that legal aid, the cost of ensuring that those accused of criminal offences have a fair trial, is a frivolity. Note that he was acquitted. What price would this Sun journalist think reasonable to defend himself against charges of killing 95 people?

9. Well we know that The Sun’s publisher News Corp thought it reasonable to pay £60m in private fees to defend five journalists accused and acquitted of phone hacking.

That’s an average of £12m each, and nobody was accused of causing loss of life. theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/j…

10. But when it comes to the public, The Sun and News Corp doesn’t think that if you are accused of a crime that you deserve to have the same right to a defence as its journalists.

The hypocrisy would be jaw-dropping if it weren’t so depressingly families.

11. This attitude is ignorant, exploitative and dangerous. It is also prevalent. This thread is copied from responses to similar stories in The Sun earlier this year. I make no apology for this - as long as they copy and paste trash #FakeLaw, I’ll copy and paste my rebuttals.

12. I don’t care if I am stuck on repeat. These #LegalAidLies have been allowed to flourish unchecked for years. Stories like these are like fake health cure articles - they cause irreparable damage not only to public understanding, but to people’s lives. They must be challenged.

13. Because here’s the kicker. The reason that legal aid is scarce for victims’ families in inquests? It’s because the government has decimated legal aid across the board, to the applause of The Sun and others, aided by antagonistic fearmongering #FakeLaw stories just like this.

14. The lies you are told by The Sun and others about legal aid - what it’s for, what it costs, why we need it - are the reason governments have been able to remove legal aid from the most vulnerable in society without any political consequence.

Don’t let them lie to you. [ENDS]

CLARIFICATION: The Sun’s £60m legal fees in Operation Elveden included Andy Coulson’s fees. He, you may recall, was convicted and imprisoned.