header-logo header-logo

Give domestic abuse victims legal aid

05 May 2021
Issue: 7931 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Legal aid focus , Family
printer mail-detail
Gaps in provision remain as Domestic Violence Bill clears final hurdle

Lawyers have called for non-means tested legal aid to be made available to domestic abuse victims, as the Domestic Violence Bill passed its final parliamentary hurdle.

The Bill, approved by the House of Lords last week, defines domestic violence to include coercive or controlling behaviour and creates greater protection for victims.

It places a duty on local authorities to provide victims with support and accommodation, and introduces Domestic Abuse Protection Notices and Domestic Abuse Protection Orders to provide immediate protection for victims and in situations where there is insufficient evidence to charge the perpetrator. It also prevents perpetrators from cross-examining their victims in court.

Law Society president I Stephanie Boyce welcomed the extra provisions for victims, particularly given the rise in abuse during the COVID-19 pandemic.

‘This is why we believe that the criteria for legal aid should be urgently revised to ensure that victims of domestic abuse can access legal advice without having their means assessed,’ she said.

Boyce also warned that some of the Bill’s measures fall short of what was required, for example, ‘alleged abusers should also be banned from examining some other witnesses―the couple’s children being the prime example―in court’.

Bar Council chair Derek Sweeting QC said: ‘It is disappointing that the government has ignored our call to make non-means tested legal aid available in all domestic abuse cases… legal representation ought to be a given for these difficult and traumatic cases.’

Vanessa Friend, partner at Hodge Jones & Allen, said: ‘Although the Lords had proposed amendments around the monitoring of stalkers and abusers, which were rejected by the government, they ultimately wanted the bill to be passed and recognised the value in doing so.’

Friend said there were gaps in provision for the 2.4 million victims of domestic abuse each year, including the failure to protect migrants who have no recourse to public funds.

Issue: 7931 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Legal aid focus , Family
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll