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

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll