header-logo header-logo

08 February 2018
Issue: 7780 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus
printer mail-detail

LASPO failing children

Research reveals thousands of young people ‘at grave risk’

Legal aid cuts in 2013 have had devastating consequences for children, a new report by Coram Children’s Legal Centre (Coram) reveals.

The report, Rights without remedies, which was published this week, shows the impact on children of LASPO (the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012). It highlights how the cuts introduced by LASPO left thousands of children each year at grave risk of miscarriages of justice with some losing their home, legal status, education and family access.

According to the report, at least 6,000 children each year are unable to access legal help or representation on a civil matter. For example, Coram’s Child Law Advice Service (CLAS) believes schools may have acted unlawfully in a quarter of school exclusions by not complying with procedures or not adequately considering special educational needs. However, legal aid was not available in most of these cases.

Coram also estimates that there are several thousand children in local authority care where immigration (rather than trafficking or asylum) is the main issue. Those children would be claimants in their own right but are not eligible for legal aid. While local authorities have a duty to help those children resolve their immigration and legal issues, the relevant statutory guidance is silent on how it is to be funded. Coram estimate it costs local authorities £10m per year, compared to a cost of £6m or less if legal aid were restored.

Consequently, Coram is calling for urgent changes to the government’s exceptional funding ‘safety net’ for vulnerable individuals, and for legal aid to be reinstated for all children in the care of local authorities or where children’s services are involved in private law family proceedings.

Dr Carol Homden, Coram’s chief executive officer, said: ‘Charities cannot, nor can they be expected to, fill the gaps left by limitations to a statutory service.’ 

Issue: 7780 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Commercial firm strengthens real estate disputes team with associate hire

Switalskis—three appointments

Switalskis—three appointments

Firm appoints three directors to board

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Six promoted to partner and one to legal director across UK and Ireland offices

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll