Maeve Boothby O'Neill - articles about her life, death and inquest

Your blanket loathing of the legal profession is very disappointing, Jonathan, and it does you no credit.

Getting formal pro bono representation is very, very difficult for a number of reasons (too long for here). The legal profession is currently engaged in a battle for improved access to legal aid for both those seeking and those providing legal services. The current system is in crisis, along with most other public services.

The legal profession would be delighted if legal aid was available universally for "interested persons" at inquests (eg. Sarah and Sean) but that only happens in very limited circumstances. That is not the fault of lawyers who are as critical of this unfair system as anyone (and it doesn't just impact inquests but every other branch of the legal process too).

I know of many lawyers who give freely of their time and expertise for no payment. That has always been the case. However, providing pro bono representation at eg. Maeve's inquest would have been a massive undertaking, given the enormous number of documents and length of the hearings. It is a service which very few suitable lawyers would have felt able to undertake for free alongside their other commitments.

A grossly unfair system? Yes. The "complicity of the legal profession in denying ordinary people justice"? Absolutely not.

ETA: Many people have had bad experiences with lawyers (including me). As with doctors, that does not make them representative of the entire profession.

 

We disagree, Valerie, I guess. The legal aid issue I see as largely a red herring. The injustice in the inquest goes much deeper than that, as in the Post Office case.

I am very happy to admit that the medical profession is just as bad in certain respects but perhaps not at this level of denying access to what it is one is purporting to be supplying.

 

There is a difference between lawyers and the legal system, just as doctors are not synonymous with the health service.

 

Following up on the current debate about the dire situation of Specialist ME services. I came across this useful document about driving change.

https://nhsproviders.org/resources/...strategies-for-addressing-health-inequalities

 

I agree that the last Government was wishing to cut off Legal Aid, as it was an inconvenience to them delivering their slant or ideology. It was an anti democratic move and endangering both public and lawyers who's work could effectively dry up.

That's how 'Crowdjustice' was born, as an alternative way to establish a fairer crack of the whip and restore democratic balance. I used them on 2016 for an Environmental Juducial Review case.

 

At the risk of thread crossover, George Monbiot tweeted about whether a Public enquiry is needed. I know Sarah Boothby was looking at contesting the inquest. How viable might legal routes be, for Maeve and for pwME do we think?