Our interview with the head of the Court Service last week prompted these responses ...
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Dear Sir,
The chief executive of the Court Service appears remarkably complaisant in articulating government policy to raise court fees to a level where they cover the whole of the costs of the judiciary and the courts ("Free Agent for Justice", 3 January 1996).
Mr Huebner does not divulge that the proposal is so politically controversial that it has been rejected on constitutional grounds by both the representative body of the US judiciary and a recent commission on justice established by the Australian government.
As your correspondent, Stephen Ward, correctly comments, daily hearing fees of pounds 200 in the county court and pounds 500 in the High Court are being widely discussed as those necessary to raise the type of funds needed to close the gap between current revenue and costs.
Fees of this magnitude will undoubtedly deter poorer litigants, already hit by legal aid cuts that can require payment of lawyers' costs by those in receipt of means-tested welfare benefits. They will provide another weapon by which richer litigants can exercise pressure on the less wealthy by stalling on settlement. Furthermore, the very notion of imposing full costs on users denies that the courts have any public role beyond the adjudication of disputes between individual litigants.
Yours sincerely
ROGER SMITH
Director,
Legal Action Group
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments