header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
18 October 2007 / Roger Smith
Issue: 7293 / Categories: Opinion , Legal aid focus
printer mail-detail

Ever-decreasing circles

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Does anyone still care about legal aid?
wonders Roger Smith

It’s hard to make out what’s happening in legal aid. The recently published 2007 Pre-Budget Report and Comprehensive Spending Review states that legal aid will be cut by just under £200m by 2010-11. This appears to mean only that legal aid spending is to be flatlined at about £2bn a year. This will be bad enough, particularly as it’s boom time for prison builders. But what will happen to legal aid over the period of the spending review?

Legal aid spending reached probably its maximum level ever in 2002–3 when it amounted to £2.1bn. Since then it has hovered around the £2bn mark—where it will stay. Anyone who has heard secretary of state for justice Jack Straw speak about legal aid will recognise three things. First, he is not really interested. Second, he wants to reduce the budget. Indeed, at the recent Labour party conference in Bournemouth, he expressly queried why such spending should be higher than in France, Italy or Ireland—three countries with somewhat unremarkable

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll