header-logo header-logo

02 November 2018
Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus
printer mail-detail

Figures show justice budget ‘over-cut’

Austerity was used as an excuse to ‘over-cut’ the justice budget, the Bar Council has implied, in a report that reveals the shattering consequences of a decade of disinvestment in legal aid.

The report, Justice in the age of austerity, by Professor Martin Chalkley, was launched at a Justice Week event, just days after the Chancellor of the Exchequer cut Ministry of Justice (MoJ) funding by £300m to £6bn per year in his Autumn Budget.

It asserts that a 27% real term cut to MoJ funding in the past ten years is out of step with reductions to other public services, and with a 13% growth in real terms in overall government expenditure.

During the same period, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) funding fell 34% with less spent per prosecution and legal aid funding fell 32%, compared to a 5% fall in education funding, a 6% fall in defence funding, a 25% funding increase in health, a 23% rise in social protection spending and a 10% rise in economic affairs.

Professor Chalkley said: ‘In the last 10 years, the size of the economic “cake” available for public spending has in fact grown.

‘Not only that, the government’s share of that cake has stayed stable at around 40%. Cuts to justice are clearly way out of step with what happened in other areas of public spending.’

Andrew Walker QC, chair of the Bar, said: ‘This research explains the context of the enormous disinvestment in justice over the last ten years, and highlights just how badly justice has been treated in comparison with other areas of government expenditure.

‘Since the financial crash, governments have had to operate under some very real fiscal constraints, but it is clear they have vastly over-cut the justice budget and the public are now feeling the effects.

‘Why has the CPS taken such a hard hit, alongside criminal legal aid? The government is gambling with public safety and the rights of individuals, so it can scrimp on what is already a relatively tiny budget. As disclosure and prosecution failings showed this year, such cuts carry enormous risks.’

Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Regulatory team boosted by partner hire amid rising health and safety demand

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Legal director promoted to partner at specialist pensions firm

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Residential development capability expands with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll