On 1 April the Jackson reforms to legal aid kicked in. On news broadcast and in the press, mingled in with the reports of the implementation of the bedroom tax were items on the loss of legal aid for a range of cases, including welfare, family and housing claims.
What most reports didn't mention was that aid is also being withdrawn for almost all clinical negligence cases: those for which compensation is most crucial to the physical well-being of the victim.
To its credit BBC Wales did address the issue on its website on Friday, with an interview with the father of little Kate Pierce. Sadly, Kate died while on holiday last month, aged just seven. When she was nine months old she contracted pneumococcal meningitis, which was missed at the time by the doctors at the hospital she attended.
According to her father, the family could not have fought for the compensation they won last year without legal aid.
He told BBC Wales: "The legal aid rules have changed. Because Kate was nine months old and because the injury didn't occur at birth or shortly afterwards, Kate would not be eligible to pursue a claim using legal aid."
He contradicts the Ministry of Justice, which dismisses criticism by saying that 90% of cases can be fought with a 'no-win, no-fee' arrangement. An expert lawyer able to commit the time and dedication to the case simply would not be available on a no-win, no-fee basis, he said.
Research carried out by the University of Warwick and the ilegal website, meanwhile, found that nearly 30% of legal aid workers consider themselves to be at risk of redundancy, with the axe likely to affect the North, Midlands, South West and Wales – to no-one's surprise.
The Law Society Gazette quotes the report's author Natalie Byrom as saying: "This survey raises grave concerns about the creation of advice deserts and vulnerable people unable to get the advice they desperately need."
• In general, though, the news reports have been full of ballyhoo about bogus car insurance claims, with the BBC again having to backtrack and admit it took at face value an assertion by an insurance industry spokesperson that "one in seven RTA claims results from a staged collision". The figure was disputed in a complaint by a solicitor.
The furore followed a series of unchallenged claims by insurers and politicians about false whiplash claims, which would have us all walking around wearing surgical collars if they were true. As usual, expert opinion is crying forlornly in the wilderness while vested interest bleats loudest.
• Experts were also metaphorically 'in the dock' at a conference organised by the Forensic Science Society on 20 March.
Its President, Dr Ann Priston, commented: "More and more these days advocates, barristers and judges are having to get their minds around some of the most complex issues that forensic science addresses. They must do this sufficiently well that a jury would have no difficulty in fully appreciating its significance."
The idea that juries might have a problem in understanding the significance of evidence in trials has been aired recently with the discharging of the jury in the original Vicky Pryce case. The judge was clearly exasperated by some of the questions asked, some of which appeared to have completely missed the point of his remarks.
Moves to restrict and even abolish trial by jury have been driven more by cost, however, with the more arcane arguments about complexity of evidence and opportunities for tampering playing supporting roles. So we abolish the jury, tell the defendant who is going to defend them and then claw back the legal aid. Are we sure Franz Kafka was Czech?
Chris Stokes