header-logo header-logo

Legal Aid Fears of MPs and Peers

21 December 2011
Issue: 7495 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

The Joint Committee on Human Rights has voiced concerns over provision for domestic violence victims in the legal aid bill.

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill – currently at the Lords stage – makes legal aid unavailable for vast areas of civil and family law. It preserves legal aid for victims of domestic violence but uses a narrower definition of ‘domestic violence’ than that used by the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the government and practitioners in the field.

The Joint Committee noted that the evidence required to prove domestic violence was “quite restrictive”, and that the 12-month time limit would fail to protect victims where an abusive partner is due to come out of prison.

Other concerns raised by the committee included whether the Director of Legal Aid Case Work would be sufficiently independent when deciding whether to grant legal aid to cases challenging government bodies, and whether provision for funding exceptional cases potentially breached human rights.

It was concerned about the effect that provisions to make success fees and insurance premiums irrecoverable would have on clinical negligence cases and on cases brought against multinationals by claimants in developing countries.

Hywel Francis MP, the chair of the committee, said: “While we welcome the government's proposed amendments to enable victims of domestic violence to continue to obtain Legal Aid, we doubt that the Bill as drafted will achieve that aim.

“We are also concerned that the government have not demonstrated that the proposed Director of Legal Aid Casework will be sufficiently independent to ensure fair access to legal aid in cases against the Government, in the absence of a right to appeal to an independent court or tribunal.”

This week, two Conservative Peers, Lord Tebbit and Lord Newton, tabled an amendment to the Bill to retain legal aid for clinical negligence claims involving children.
 

Issue: 7495 / 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