header-logo header-logo

14 September 2013 / Dr Jon Robins
Issue: 7575 / Categories: Opinion , Legal aid focus
printer mail-detail

A gap worth filling

Jon Robins takes little solace from the government’s recent U-turn on legal aid reform

Chris Grayling’s legal aid sort of U-turn last week is, of course, to be welcomed. I say “sort of” because, although the ill-thought and probably unworkable price competitive tendering scheme has been binned, in its place an across-the-board 17.5% fee cut will be imposed upon a beleaguered defence profession as well as a restatement of the commitment to save £220m from the legal aid budget.

Although, the Law Society brokered the deal with the government following a “constructive engagement” that the justice secretary never tires of praising (no doubt much to Chancery Lane’s discomfort), it recognises that firms will go to the wall as a result of the cut. The solicitors’ representative body might have accepted the case for “managed market consolidation”, but its members haven’t.

There isn’t much to celebrate about last week’s “climbdown”, aside from an opportunity to rethink the judicial review proposals. But the ambitious justice secretary was quick to reassure voters he hadn’t gone

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

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
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
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll