header-logo header-logo

04 January 2007
Issue: 7254 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus
printer mail-detail

Criminal legal thresholds too low

News

Three-quarters of adults in working households do not have the right to receive legal aid for cases before a magistrates’ court,
research by the New Policy Institute (NPI) shows.

The NPI claims that since means testing was re-introduced last October legal aid in magistrates’ courts is restricted to people not in work and those working in households with the lowest incomes—particularly those where part-time work only is being done. Peter Kenway, NPI director, says the thresholds which determine whether someone is eligible for legal aid should be revised upwards so that more people are included. Currently, single adults are eligible for legal aid if their gross annual income is below £11,590, while they are not eligible if it exceeds £20,740—between these limits, a further test is conducted to see if net income less a cost of living allowance exceeds £3,156.

Kenway says: “The question is whether the effects of what it has enacted are what Parliament expected. In particular, did it intend to remove eligibility from 75% of adults in working households?”

A government spokesman says: “The new means test has been designed to identify as fairly as possible an applicant’s genuine ability to pay. Even in circumstances where a defendant does not pass the means test, the hardship review provision will still afford an additional safety net for those applicants who face unusually high defence costs.”

 

 

 

Issue: 7254 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll