header-logo header-logo

Call for review of LASPO

21 April 2016
Issue: 7695 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Legal aid solicitors still await government review

As the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) hits its three-year anniversary, legal aid solicitors are still waiting for a review.

LASPO took effect in April 2013, removing legal aid from vast tranches of civil and private family law, including housing (except where an imminent threat of homelessness exists) and social security law.

Writing in NLJ this week, columnist Jon Robins notes the latest figures from the Legal Aid Agency showing the workload for advice and assistance about a legal problem is now one third of pre-LASPO levels and civil representation is about two-thirds of what it was. Despite Ministry of Justice (MoJ) promises, however, there has been no government review of LASPO.

Robins points out that only 226 applications were granted out of 1,172 made to the exceptional funding regime, which was supposed to be a safety net against the LASPO cuts. The MoJ had anticipated that between 5,000 and 7,000 applications would be made each year.

“It’s no surprise as the cuts bite, law firms pull out of what remains of the legal aid scheme, not-for-profit advice agencies go to the wall, and then there is the maddening bureaucracy of legal aid,” Robins writes.

Steve Hynes, director of  the Legal Action Group, says: “The LASPO Act has denied tens of thousands of people access to justice and equality before the law. It should not be reviewed, but repealed.
 
“The MoJ seems to believe that justice is a public service to be rationed, rather than a set of principles to be adhered to.”

An MoJ spokesman said: “As we have already made clear, we are committed to having a review of the legal aid reforms in LASPO. Our legal aid system is still one of the most generous in the world and last year we spent £1.6bn on legal aid. We have made sure legal aid continues to be available in the highest priority cases, for example where people’s life or liberty is at stake, where they face the loss of their home, in domestic violence cases or where their children may be taken into care.”

Issue: 7695 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll