I cannot remember when I last posted twice in one day. But the decision of the Legal Agency to refuse Legal Aid to the family of Molly Russell for representation at the inquest into her death is crying out for comment.
Molly died in November 2017. She took her own life. Her family discovered Instagram posts about depression and suicide. Her father has said that he has no doubt that Instagram helped kill his daughter –
This has led to a huge public debate about the influence of social media and the responsibility of these platforms for the safety of their young users. Instagram has pledged to ‘blur’ images of self-harm on its site which now boasts over a billion users worldwide.
This is a major issue which affects us all – both at home and across the world. Molly’s inquest is an opportunity for many questions to be answered. Questions that concern families everywhere.
Back to the Legal Aid Agency. Families are not entitled to legal aid to be represented at inquests. But funding is available if there are exceptional circumstances. There are guidelines published by the Lord Chancellor –
Paragraph 28 says –
’28. In the context of an inquest, the most likely wider public benefits are the identification of dangerous practices, systematic failings or other findings that identify significant risks to the life, health or safety of other persons.’
The whole argument here is whether there are dangerous practices which present significant risks to the lives of young people in the context of a particular child.
This debate had made national news. The refusal of legal aid has made national news. If ever a case was ‘exceptional’, this is it. The public is entitled to a full inquiry into the role of social media in Molly’s death, so that the lives of others can be protected. There is little doubt that the social media industry will have access to the best, and most expensive, legal representation.
This refusal of legal aid beggars belief. It makes you wonder if any case can satisfy the guidelines.