header-logo header-logo

13 February 2019
Issue: 7828 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus
printer mail-detail

LASPO review fails to impress

Lawyers label extra funding ‘but a drop in the ocean’

The long-awaited Ministry of Justice (MoJ) review of its legal aid cuts has left lawyers largely disappointed.

The post-implementation review of LASPO (the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012), published last week, pledges a further £5m towards technological solutions and £3m to help litigants in person.

However, Richard Atkins QC, Chair of the Bar Council, described this extra £8m as ‘but a drop in the ocean’. LASPO has cut £350m from legal aid funding each year from 2013 and removed hundreds of thousands of people from eligibility for legal aid funding for civil and family matters.

The review notes that fewer publicly funded cases have been brought. In particular, volumes have declined more than anticipated in social welfare law and family cases. It notes that the legal system is not capable of catering for those without legal representation, and that advice deserts are leaving areas without legal aid lawyers.

Another proposal is to raise awareness about access to advice. However, Conservative MP and chair of the Justice Committee Bob Neill QC said: ‘There’s already a desperate lack of capacity in advice centres so in this case it’s hard to see how simply “raising awareness” will help.’

Neill said the pressures across the whole justice system are ‘real and immediate’.

CILEx policy director Simon Garrod criticised the review’s ‘vague promises’.

The review also highlights the importance of early intervention to nip problems in the bud before they spiral, and commits to extending legal aid to special guardianship orders in private family law and to reviewing the legal aid means test.

Jo Edwards, chair of Resolution’s Family Law Group, said the government’s commitments have to be backed up by ‘meaningful funding’.

Family law solicitor and NLJ columnist David Burrows said ministers must recognise the ‘on-cost’ of cuts—‘joined up thinking proposed recently in NLJ by Sir Geoffrey Bindman is basic to legal aid’.

Deborah Coles, director of INQUEST, said the MoJ had ‘failed to confront the reality of the uneven playing field faced by bereaved families’, and called for automatic non-means tested legal aid funding to families following a state-related death.

Issue: 7828 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
The legal profession’s claim to be a ‘guardian of fairness’ is under scrutiny after stark findings on gender imbalance and opaque progression. Writing in NLJ this week, Joshua Purser of No5 Barristers’ Chambers and Govindi Deerasinghe of Global 50/50 warn that leadership remains dominated by a narrow elite, with men holding 71% of top court roles
A legal challenge to police disclosure rules has failed, reinforcing a push for transparency in policing. In NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth examines a case where the Metropolitan Police required officers to declare membership of groups like the Freemasons
Bereavement leave is undergoing a quiet but profound transformation. Writing in NLJ this week, Robert Hargreaves of York St John University explains how the Employment Rights Act 2025 introduces a day-one right to leave for a wider range of losses, alongside new provisions for pregnancy loss and bereaved partners
Courts are beginning to grapple with whether AI-generated material is legally privileged—and the answers are mixed. In this week's issue of NLJ, Stacie Bourton, Tom Whittaker & Beata Kolodziej of Burges Salmon examine US rulings showing how easily privilege can be lost
New guidance seeks to bring order to the growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Minesh Tanna and David Bridge of Simmons & Simmons set out a framework stressing ‘transparency’, ‘explainability’ and ‘reliability’
back-to-top-scroll