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 It should not be reviewed, but repealed.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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll