Call us: Mon - Fri 8:30am - 7pm, Sat - Sun 9am - 5pm
Call local rate 0330 056 3171
Mon - Fri 8:30am - 7pm | Sat - Sun 9am - 5pm
Call local rate 0330 056 3171
Mon - Fri 8:30am - 7pm | Sat - Sun 9am - 5pm

The Experts: Why should we fund Asil Nadir’s theft case?

This is an expanded version of my latest post for The Times, which appears on The Experts blog today.

I was doing some work for the Law Society. I travelled to a small Midlands town, to a high street lawyer’s office next to a greasy spoon cafe. I went in, and met a lawyer whose drive and dynamism knocked me out.

This lawyer dealt only with legal aid cases and frankly, cared only for the clients. There was a chaotic atmosphere and the files were piled high – all light years from the grand offices of Central London lawyers. But there was equal commitment to each client and case, for substantially less reward. There was little doubt about that lawyer’s ability and competence. It was impressive.

Legal aid cases used to provide my bread and butter too, but the cumbersome, bureaucratic process drove me to distraction. Whenever I wanted to take a new step, I had to obtain authorisation. Payments were low and slow in coming. Ultimately, I decided to move on.

However there are thousands of high street practitioners who have continued to soldier on, giving their services to those who cannot afford to pay top rates. They work hard for those in need, and those who are least able to express themselves in court. But these able lawyers are swimming against the tide. The legal aid bill, we are told, is unsustainable. Why so? Why is it so high?

Legal aid used to be within reach of a large proportion of our population. Slowly but surely, the qualifications have been whittled away. Now only the poorest will qualify… but with surprising exceptions.

Mayfair resident Asil Nadir, the former chief executive of Polly Peck, has been granted legal aid to defend a hugely expensive fraud trial. He fled the UK in 1993 after being charged with 66 counts of theft, lived in apparent luxury in Cyprus, and returned last summer to face the music.

In these tough economic times, should the taxpayer fund his defence? I am unconvinced. So why does our system provide apparently ample resources for white collar legal aid, while depriving the needy? If cuts need to made, surely they should be made in Mr Nadir’s case first?

Worse still, the government is proposing further restrictions for the poor and the vulnerable in areas across civil law, such as both parties in abusive marriages, children cases, clinical negligence, education, welfare and housing. The “Sound off for Justice” campaign is valiantly seeking support to stop the cuts, and the Law Society has its own sensible proposals for saving legal aid while also saving money. So far, however, the protests have apparently fallen on deaf ears.

There are those who argue that lawyers are trying to save their own skins. Not so. Even those of us who are not legal aid lawyers are horrified by the plans. We live in a democracy, in which access to justice is extremely precious. Shouldn’t the state assistance we have be shared out fairly?

The founder of Stowe Family Law, Marilyn Stowe is one of Britain’s best known family law solicitors and divorce lawyers. She retired from Stowe Family Law in 2017.

Contact us

As the UK's largest family law firm we understand that every case is personal.


  1. ObiterJ says:

    Your point of view on Nadir is shared by many. Of course, the legal aid rules for cases in the Crown Court are somewhat more generous than in the Magistrates’ Court though defending a case in the Crown Court is likely to end up with even the acquitted defendant financially ruined. The last Lord Chancellor – Mr Straw – altered the rules for Crown Court and the new government – Mr Clarke – embraced them with open arms.

    This is an iniquitous system.

    We are a nation which can, so it appears, afford to give billions away in overseas aid. (I do not entirely oppose overseas aid – but seriously question the amount and much of the targeting). We can afford to fight a war in Libya on top of the existing military commitment in Afghanistan – (10 years now). I think we could do rather better for our own people.

  2. Lukey says:

    I think we can safely say that the vast majority of the general public do not want legal aid increased, it costs the taxpayer a fortune, there have been too many frivolous cases where it has been abused.

    I can understand lawyers wanting to increase it as it is financially in their interest – but most people cannot benefit – we need FEWER cases going to court and more sensible compromises before getting there, legal aid does not promote that.

  3. ObiterJ says:

    @Lukey – well targeted legal advice and assistance can prevent many a case getting into the courts.

  4. Lukey says:

    I think to call Legal Aid parsimonious is a stretch, and the idea that Legal Aid saves money is just ridiculous. For instance 463 Barristers made over £150,000 each from Legal Aid alone last year – we all know why the legal system wants to keep it, it’s a “nice little earner” 🙂

  5. Marilyn Stowe says:

    The principle that those who desperately need legal services can’t get it all, is what is most troubling to me.

  6. Tulsa Divorce Attorneys says:

    Our society needs a fully funded Legal Aid. Without a fully funded Legal Aid, the under-privileged will be unable to afford justice.

Leave a comment

Help & advice categories


Newsletter Sign Up

Sign up for advice on divorce and relationships from our lawyers, divorce coaches and relationship experts.

What type of information are you looking for?

Privacy Policy