header-logo header-logo

How to safeguard access to justice?

19 September 2016
Issue: 7715 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Can greater use of technology, pro bono advice and McKenzie’s Friends ever plug the gap in civil legal aid?

A new report by legal think tank Halsbury’s Law Exchange, Can we safeguard access to justice, uses real-life examples and insight from judges and practitioners to examine the state of legal aid provision in England and Wales. It raises interesting questions regarding the future use of technology and changing business practices.

In a foreword to the report, legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg QC invites the reader to imagine a graph depicting the effect of LASPO (the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which came into force in April 2013). At the beginning of 2013, there are more than 130,000 civil legal aid cases a quarter but by the summer the number has dropped by two-thirds to about 40,000 cases a quarter.

This saves the government money—civil legal aid spending drops 20% from £1,063m to £852m—but leaves people without legal representation, increases the numbers of litigants in person, puts pressure on the courts and reduces the number of lawyers specialising in the affected areas.

The government has responded by investing in technology, with initiatives such as the online court intended to help fill the gaps. Other innovations have helped, for example, a device developed by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer that helps law centres keep track of clients with chaotic lives.

However, the report poses difficult questions. Is a McKenzie Friend any substitute for professional legal advice? Who is left to help a woman who develops mental and physical health problems as a result of mental and physical abuse at the hands of her husband and family but is erroneously classified as not a domestic abuse victim by a system under strain? Practitioners predict a growth in digitally-assisted services and greater cross-over between law centres and grassroots charities such as food banks.

Whatever the future holds, practitioners in the field agree the path is unlikely to be smooth. The report has been published ahead of the Halsbury’s Law Exchange Debate on 22 September at One Great George Street, London, on the same topic.

Issue: 7715 / Categories: Legal News
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