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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

London tech and comms team boosted by telecoms and regulatory hires

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll