header-logo header-logo

Criminal legal thresholds too low

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

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

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
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
In NLJ this week, Bea Rossetto of the National Pro Bono Centre marks Pro Bono Week by urging lawyers to recognise the emotional toll of pro bono work
Can a lease legally last only days—or even hours? Professor Mark Pawlowski of the University of Greenwich explores the question in this week's NLJ
RFC Seraing v FIFA, in which the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) reaffirmed that awards by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) may be reviewed by EU courts on public-policy grounds, is under examination in this week's NLJ by Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law, Zurich
back-to-top-scroll