Whilst this case involves a highly controversial intervention by the President (no doubt there are too many cases to count that are more deserving of his attention) there are several positive messages that can be taken away from the case:
1. Is this the long awaited gateway for those that cannot afford legal representation and do not qualify for legal aid under LAPSO, but their representation is also necessary to ensure "a just and fair hearing"?!
2. That even in the most seemingly hopeless of cases the court must fully investigate whether contact between a child and parent should be re-established.
3. If you know of a case that warrants intervention by the President - try writing to him!
In a move branded “appalling” by victims’ rights campaigners, the abuser was awarded legal aid to “avoid a breach of his human right” after Sir James Munby, the president of the High Court’s family division, publicly criticised the Ministry of Justice.