header-logo header-logo

05 May 2021
Issue: 7931 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Legal aid focus , Family
printer mail-detail

Give domestic abuse victims legal aid

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

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