header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
12 May 2016 / Steve Hynes
Issue: 7698 / Categories: Opinion
printer mail-detail

Back to the drawing board

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7698_hynes

It’s time to rethink LASPO, says Steve Hynes

Four years ago the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) received royal assent. In the following April cuts to legal aid were introduced that according to the government’s own estimates denied access to justice to over 300,000 people. Since the controversial legislation was approved by parliament there have been calls for it to be reviewed (see “Overdue review?”, Jon Robins, NLJ, 22 April 2016, p 7). In the Cabinet Office guide to making legislation it was recommended that a review should take place three to five years after the legislation received royal assent. So a review of LASPO should happen soon.

Rather like a parliamentary equivalent of motherhood and apple pie no government or political party seems to disagree with the merits of a system of post-legislative scrutiny. Legislative reviews though, tend not to carry much weight or lead to any change unless the government of the day accepts that mistakes need to be rectified.

Start from scratch

LASPO has

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Winckworth Sherwood—Charlotte Coleman & Qaisar Sheikh

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlotte Coleman & Qaisar Sheikh

Two promoted to partner in property litigation and education teams

Dorsey & Whitney LLP—Peter Knust

Dorsey & Whitney LLP—Peter Knust

Cross-border finance and restructuring specialist joins as of counsel in London

Powell Gilbert—Callum Beamish-Lacey

Powell Gilbert—Callum Beamish-Lacey

IP firm promotes litigator to partnership

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll