Topics / Crime, policing and justice
Should everyone accused of a crime be entitled to a publicly funded defence, whatever the charge?
When someone is accused of a crime, how far should the state pay for their defence: for everyone regardless of means or charge, only for those who cannot afford a lawyer, or fully at trial but more selectively after conviction? All three positions accept that every accused person must be able to defend themselves; they differ on how to weigh cost, need, finality and the risk of wrongful conviction.
Positions
- Yes, for everyone, without exception: The presumption of innocence only means something if every defendant can test the evidence against them, so the state that prosecutes should fund a competent defence for everyone it accuses, whatever the charge and whatever their means.
- Yes, but means-tested: Everyone accused of a crime, whatever the charge, must be able to get a proper defence, but people who can afford a lawyer should pay for their own so that public money goes further for those who cannot.
- Yes for trial, limits on what follows: The state should fund a full defence for every defendant at trial, whatever the charge, but once a conviction has been tested on appeal and found safe, public funding for repeated further challenges should be limited unless there is genuinely new evidence, with the savings going to victims' services and to reducing court delays.