Bar Council report confirms “devastating” impact of LASPO on legal aid
Legal aid cuts have had a “devastating” effect on access to justice, a major report has concluded.
A Bar Council report, LASPO: One Year On, into the impact of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) found that fewer people have access to free legal representation now than in 1949, when legal aid was introduced. LASPO removed legal aid from swathes of civil law in April 2013.
Nearly 90% of respondents who work with family courts and 70% of respondents from civil courts reported an increase in litigants in person. The report, based on interviews and a survey of more than 700 legal practitioners, found that this causes a chain reaction of cases not being properly presented, leading to extra delays, pressures and costs on the court system, as well as litigants damaging their case by not making points or speaking up when they should. More people are relying on pro bono services, with a 50% increase in applications to the Bar Pro Bono Unit in the first year.
Nicholas Lavender QC, chair of the Bar Council, says: “Much of what we feared about LASPO has come to pass. Individuals dealing with life-changing legal issues are denied fair access to justice if they cannot afford it.
“A rise in self-representation is clogging the courts and creating additional costs to the tax payer, free frontline legal advisors are creaking under the strain, pro bono lawyers cannot cope with the demand, and the safety net the government created for providing legal aid in ‘exceptional cases’ is not fit for purpose.”
The report also highlights that Ministry of Justice predictions that 5,000 to 7,000 applications for “exceptional circumstances” funding would be made, and the majority granted, have failed to pass. Only 1,519 applications were made in the first year, and a mere 57 granted.
The Bar Council called on the government to collect more data on litigants in person, simplify court documents, work with voluntary agencies to provide extra support and extend exceptional funding criteria to include cases of “significant wider public interest” and of “overwhelming importance to the client”.
