YOU may have heard the old joke: ‘Where was the Magna Carta signed?’ Answer: ‘At the bottom.’ In fact it was not signed. On June 15, 1215, the Magna Carta was sealed under oath by King John at Runnymead. Next year is its 800th anniversary.

Clause 40 of the Magna Carta promised “to no one will we sell, to no one deny...justice”.

I have remarked in many previous articles about the demise of Legal Aid and the fact that without Legal Aid access to justice is denied and we are defaulting on the promise.

In previous articles I have described one example of the elderly widows who have been defrauded by greedy property speculators or, indeed, their own children, for which Legal Aid is no longer available to proceed claims through to court.

All the claims seeking financial restitution for wrongs that have taken place are excluded from the Legal Aid system. When the Bill was going through Parliament, the Government justified the changes on the basis that we have “an overly litigious culture” and that people “should pursue non-contentious means of dispute resolution”.

It was also suggested by the Government that should those means not resolve the dispute then people might decide to do absolutely nothing – in other words, to let the wrong remain unrighted.

What has happened is the law has now been placed out of the reach of the poor and whole swathes of people have been excluded from the legal system. Those who cannot afford justice will have to do without it.

All of this came to a head last month when the Senior Judge at the Family Division of the High Court made a scathing criticism of the Government and the lack of Legal Aid in connection with a case involving a dispute between a family and a local authority who wanted to take their child into care.

One can think of no other circumstance where legal representation is more in need than a case of a family facing the removal of their child by the state.

The judge said: “Thus far the state has simply washed its hands of the problem, leaving the solution to the problem which the state itself has created – the state has brought the proceedings but declined all responsibility of ensuring that the parents are able to participate effectively in the proceedings it has brought – to the goodwill, the charity, of the legal profession.

“This is, it might be thought, both unprincipled and unconscionable.”

The financial case for abolishing legal aid was always specious. It was widely suggested that we had the most expensive legal system in the world. In fact in 2012 we spent less than Germany, the Netherlands or Norway.

The court system is now blocked up by litigants in person, cases are taking longer than they previously would have taken and the court is being burdened with unworthy cases.

A recent Citizens Advice Bureau study estimated that for every pound of legal aid expenditure spent on welfare benefits advice they can save the state £8.80.

Lets face it the purpose of these cuts is not economic. It is ideological. Where is the Magna Carta when we need it?