JK,
At Bartholomew's Notes, you wrote:I bet many of your readers are not aware that Legal Aid – if the falsely accused are found guilty – must be repaid; making hundreds of prisoners sell their homes and tossing wives and children onto the streets. I would like to know more about this when you have time to expand a little.

If the wife/other beneficial owners of the domestic residence were not a party to the legal action - their share of the property would not be affected.

Nor could the property be sold from underneath their feet.

Similarly - if a spouse borrowed money against a jointly held asset, without the knowledge of the other owner(s) - the latter's rights wouldn't be compromised.

Sadly most defendants do not prepare for such eventualities and think Legal Aid means their defence is paid for by the State, no matter what. I was horrified when I discovered this.

No expert here - but presumably/hopefully - your legal costs will eventually be paid by the State!

I'm still not at all clear about this. My impression was that you could only claim legal aid if you had relatively modest means.

It's come as a bit of a shock to learn that legal aid may need to be repaid if you're found guilty. Is this only at Crown Court? If found not guilty do you never have to pay back a penny?

If your financial means were limited enough to receive legal aid, how can they suddenly become sufficient to require you to repay that aid after you have been convicted? Is the same test not applied?

So many questions...most of which I can barely formulate.

Right Misa - Legal Aid is granted (or not) on INCOME - not such things as property. If granted you have to pay a deposit - in my case £12,000 - which is (and was) returned if acquitted or trial ordered abandoned. If found Guilty, however, the full costs must be repaid (even for one small charge - as happened to Dave Lee Travis). So most people whose entire existence is in capital and, usually, homes - have to sell to repay.

Thanks, JK. I'm still taking all this in. I was fairly sure that I'd read somewhere (but can't now find) that when acquitted of some charges, only a proportion of the legal aid costs had to be repaid.

I recall that DLT was convicted only of one charge, at his second trial, and that that charge had not even been part of his first trial. Are you sure he was required to repay legal aid in full, and do you happen to know whether that included the cost of both trials?