header-logo header-logo

18 October 2007 / Roger Smith
Issue: 7293 / Categories: Opinion , Legal aid focus
printer mail-detail

Ever-decreasing circles

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

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
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
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
back-to-top-scroll