What impact will the latest raft of legal aid cuts have on people fighting councils or who are wrongly accused of a crime? We ask former defendants, their families, lawyers and experts

Mark Neary

Won case against Hillingdon council detaining his autistic son in care

The changes to legal aid mean people will have to represent themselves, but it's hard to fight on your own – the legislation can be impenetrable, you have the emotional pressure of the hearing and, as a layperson, you suddenly have to be on top of complex law. The psychological impact is immense. You have hours in the witness box, you're verbally attacked – you have to defend yourself and be very resilient. Imagine doing that without counsel.

Without legal aid [to fight the council at judicial review] Hillingdon would have moved Steven 300 miles away to a secure hospital. Our relationship would have broken down and it would have taken him away from his support staff and familiar places. The judge said: "Steven would have faced a life in public care that he does not want and does not need". That's what will happen to others in our situation as a result of the changes.

Alison Brown (not her real name)

Teenage son wrongly accused of a crime

Earlier this year, a man in his 50s accused my son of attempted robbery in central London. The solicitor we chose went that extra mile. She refused to accept there was no CCTV of the alley, as police claimed. After four weeks, the CCTV was presented by police, blew the alleged victim's account out of water and the youth court dismissed the case. A duty solicitor isn't always going to spend the time, and I don't think someone who'd been working all night would have been as thorough as our solicitor. Legal aid meant that my son didn't wrongly become a youth offending statistic – I am grateful for that. The changes are unfair and disempower a young person or family, the system is stacked against them – but you're meant to be innocent until proven guilty.

Selamawit Tadesse

Victim of domestic violence who had been in the UK for less than a year

I'm from Ethiopia and met my husband through a friend. We married in May 2011 and, because my husband had refugee status here, I joined him in the UK as a "post-flight spouse", meaning I could apply for settled status at a later date. Within a few days of my arrival, my husband totally changed. He hit me for no reason and raped me many times.

The abuse got so bad that I called the police. They took me to a night shelter, but my immigration status meant I couldn't get welfare benefits or housing support. Southall Black Sisters helped me. I got legal aid to challenge the UK Border Agency's decision to refuse me access to state assistance. I wouldn't get legal aid under the new changes because I'd been in the UK less than a year when I applied for help. The introduction of this "residence test" for civil legal aid means women like me wouldn't get access to a lawyer. We've already been failed and ill-treated by our husbands. If things go wrong, the state should help – or there should be lawyers to make sure they do.

Linda Burnip

Disabled son won a judicial review against Birmingham council's ruling on bedroom tax

There are lots of cases where a disabled child or adult needs an extra room for medical reasons – kidney dialysis, or for a carer – but the benefit changes meant people couldn't get funding for the extra room. We challenged this in the Court of Appeal and the court judged it was discriminatory. Legal aid allowed us to make that challenge. Without it, my son wouldn't have been able to continue living independently and, in the long run, independent living is more cost-effect than residential care.

Ours was an important case that has since been used to challenge the bedroom tax and it has policy implications thanks to the judgment that housing benefit must take into account the extra needs of disabled adults.

The reduction in legal aid will contravene disabled people's rights because there will be no way they can challenge anything. Without access to help for an appeal, there's nothing – no other way to challenge. The legal aid changes would mean the government could do anything and slash anything and no one could challenge those decisions.

Kate Whittaker

Public law solicitor, Scott‑Moncrieff and Associates

Every item of work under legal aid is strictly constrained and minimalist, even when 20,000 severely disabled people stand to be affected, and you are taking on the might (and legal resources) of the government.

The case we brought against the government abolishing the Independent Living Fund [which helps disabled people to live independently rather than in residential care, but is being scrapped in 2015] culminated in a full two-day hearing in open court, where we argued that the consultation process was unlawful and breached the public sector equality duty. It was only then that the judge confirmed we had "permission" to bring a judicial review. Under the new proposals, I don't know how we could have brought the case, because the entire six-month costs would have hinged on that outcome.

The system is already there to make sure legal aid is never spent on weak cases, and it is incredibly rigorous and efficient. To impose further cuts, in cases of such overwhelming importance, seems like a punishment for trying to help people hold public bodies to account.

Laura Janes

Acting legal director, The Howard League for Penal Reform

Since 1990, more than 30 children have died in custody – they are restrained, sometimes unlawfully, exposed to high levels of violence, they have low expectations of what they're entitled to and, without the assistance of specialist, dedicated lawyers to catch those cases, we can expect these poor practices to continue with impunity.

A fixed fee for solicitors to represent children regardless of whether they plead innocent or guilty offers no incentive for a rigorous defence. Someone would write one letter saying "This is what the law says" and the local authority or prison would say "No, we're not doing that", and that would be the end of it. The reality is that trying to make representations to social services of duties to children isn't just a [matter of] a simple letter. You have to see the young person, establish trust, you see the child three or four times [before] they disclose they were a victim of sexual abuse.

A lot of these cases will be brushed under the carpet, children won't get what they are entitled to from local authorities [when they are released] in terms of accommodation and social welfare. They'll be more likely to resort to inadequate coping mechanisms and end up going back into the criminal justice system. If we want a child in prison currently to become an adult prisoner this is the way to go about it.

Judith Freedman

Psychiatrist and convenor of the Consortium of Expert Witnesses to the Family Courts

The latest legal aid proposals include cutting experts' fees by 20%. Expert witnesses are experienced, independent clinicians who advise courts about matters such as the causes of injuries, the risk to children of sexual dangers, and the psychological and developmental needs of children.

Take a mother who was involved in relationships during which children were severely neglected or injured. Subsequently, the mother has more children, and social services automatically removes them at birth. It is heartbreaking for the mother and deprives the child of the chance to grow up in the birth family. An expert witness might become involved during another pregnancy with a new partner. Sometimes, we find she has changed. We can recommend to the court that the mother is in a position to work with social services and a psychotherapist to make her a safer parent, so that she and her new partner can care for the new child, instead of losing the child to care.

Our consortium has 600 members and about half say that they will have to stop working for the family courts if the cuts go ahead because they could not support their practices.

Anne Hall

Severely disabled son, Daniel Roque, who requires 24-hour care, won an injunction preventing the prison service from returning him to jail

We had doubted whether prison [HMP Wormwood Scrubs] could look after someone with frail health and multiple needs, but the prison system said it could. When I complained to the prison that Daniel was deteriorating, I wasn't listened to and the [written] complaints system was inaccessible to him – he can't use his hands – and his verbal complaints weren't addressed. Daniel deteriorated, the prison was unable to look after him and he spent six months in hospital. Daniel was getting close to discharge from hospital back to prison. The court of appeal freed him.

The individual is always the least powerful when dealing with state institutions. Legal aid is the only way that individuals can redress that imbalance. I owe legal aid – without it, Daniel wouldn't be alive.

Leroy Skeete

Ex-prisoner who used legal aid to successfully prove unfair treatment in prison

Legal aid helped me win my case to challenge the way I was treated in prison – I'd still be in HMP Dartmoor otherwise.

I was recategorised [from low risk category D] to category B because the prison alleged I took part in a riot, despite my denials and witnesses saying I wasn't involved. The recategorisation form was wrong, not least because it said I'd been convicted of murder. I was serving a life sentence for GBH and wounding. I complained but was ignored. I was represented by the Prisoners' Advice Service through legal aid. PAS issued a judicial review and when prison documents were eventually disclosed, these supported my version of events. The Ministry of Justice accepted the prison was wrong and reinstated my category D status. The parole board released me in 2009 after 11 years inside. Without help to correct the initial mistakes, I wouldn't have been able to argue for release.

My progress since release shows the importance of legal aid. I've got a job in the rail industry, I've spoken in the House of Commons and at London Probation, which has been very supportive since my release. I've got married and I mentor ex-offenders.

You start taking people's rights away and it's a slippery slope. We fight wars in other countries to protect their democracy – what about what's going on in our own?

Breda Power

Justice campaigner and daughter of Billy Power, one of the Birmingham Six whose wrongful conviction was squashed in 1991 after 17 years in prison

People wouldn't have the resources under the reforms to get to the bottom of miscarriage of justice cases – small teams of specialist lawyers willing to do pro-bono work with undisclosed evidence, experts in various fields like forensics.

Under these reforms the Birmingham Six wouldn't have been able to take out any kind of judicial review or instruct solicitors willing to do all that pro-bono work. What would have happened without that? They would still be languishing in prison, and without a small team of specialist solicitors, new evidence would never have come to light. Regardless of a campaign to help free them, they would still be in prison. I know the public says 'why should we spend our hard earned tax money on defending criminals' but we're talking of people innocent until proven guilty. When someone is convicted of a miscarriage of justice it destroys families. It has a knock-on effect and it takes generations before you start the healing. These changes will destroy the whole criminal justice system and there will be miscarriages of justice that will not be unearthed.

Matt Foot

Criminal defence solicitor at Birnberg Peirce and Partners

These attacks will mean a return to the widespread miscarriages of justice of the 1970s. Those arose out of vulnerable people being exploited by police malpractice and poor defence. We know from Hillsborough, and many cases since, that police malpractice continues. These reforms will ensure poor defence – leaving the vulnerable at the mercy of the state.

Legal aid is part of the welfare state set up in 1949. My great-uncle Michael was part of a government that introduced reforms in the NHS, education and legal aid, which meant decent crucial services were no longer just the privilege of the rich. This government is taking us back to the 1930s.

The campaign against legal aid cuts has shown that there is great unity among the vast majority of lawyers against Grayling, and it is continuing to grow with support from all those communities that will suffer most from these attacks.

Caitriona McLaughlin

Duty solicitor at criminal law firm Lansbury Worthington, and a member of the London Criminal Courts Solicitors' Association

The firm I work for wouldn't be able to bid for a contract. If I was lucky enough to get a job with one of the large companies that won a bid, I'd no doubt be managing a team of at least 30 unqualified junior staff who would be doing the work. Due to the pittance we currently get paid for each case [legal aid lawyers earn an average of £25,000 a year], we're already under pressure only to do what is absolutely necessary.

However, the changes will tip the balance, and the only way to ensure profitability for the company would be to encourage every client to plead guilty and do little to no work on each case. This will result in miscarriages of justice because vital evidence, often hidden within stacks of paperwork, will be missed.

Trevor Howarth

Legal director of Stobart Barristers, a law firm established last year by Stobart Group

We at Stobart are well known for taking out the waste, here that is the duplication of solicitors going to court. There are currently 1,600 legal aid firms; in future there will be 400. At Stobart, we wouldn't use 10 trucks to deliver one product.

The key issue is delivering a quality of service in a more cost-effective way. We are bypassing solicitors and fixing a fee [with the client] at the outset. The same people are going to be standing in front of magistrates [as now]. They will be doing it at a different rate to today. We are very selective about the quality of our legal representation. [People are not] entitled to access justice with an open cheque. This [legal aid] is a massive spend so far as the taxpayer is concerned. The problem for other firms has been their legacy debt. We have a blank sheet of paper. We can deliver [a service] at a cost that's palatable to the taxpayer.

• Trevor Howarth was interviewed by Owen Bowcott in May

Lord McNally

Justice minister

At a time of major financial challenges, the legal sector cannot be immune from the government's commitment to getting best value for every penny of taxpayers' money spent. At around £2bn a year we have one of the most expensive legal aid systems in the world.

Under our proposals, professional lawyers would still be available to anyone needing advice or charged with a crime, just as they are now. The changes on which we've recently consulted won't affect people getting a fair trial, and they certainly will not destroy Britain's criminal justice system, of which we are so rightly proud. We will maintain a legal aid system that protects the most vulnerable, and is sustainable and affordable for future generations.

Eric Allison

The Guardian's prison correspondent

Eric Allison writes: In his report on the 1990 Strangeways prison riot and the disturbances that followed in many other jails, Lord Justice Woolf concluded prisoners at the Manchester prison "felt, with some justification, their complaints had not been listened to". Prisoners are now being listened to less.

The proposals by justice secretary Chris Grayling to remove legal aid from prisoners are unlikely to spark riots on the scale of Strangeways, which cost the taxpayer in excess of £150m. (For a start, prisoners are no longer allowed to gather in the same number as those who congregated in the chapel at Strangeways and kicked the riot off.)

But the attack on prisoners bringing "unnecessary legal cases" is a red herring, aimed at diverting attention from the onslaught on all forms of legal aid. The "fixed fee" system, passed by the Labour government, drastically cut the amount of money prison lawyers can claim, effectively removing representation from many prisoners. Graylings proposals simply rubber stamp what is already taking place.

Gerry Conlon

One of the Guildford Four whose wrongful conviction was quashed in 1989 after 15 years in prison