header-logo header-logo

Legal aid proves popular with voters

18 January 2023
Issue: 8009 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus , Profession , Judicial review
printer mail-detail
Members of the public across the three main parties support legal aid, research has shown.

A poll of 2,000 people by the Law Society this month found 84% of Conservative, 95% of Labour and 97% of Liberal Democrat voters in agreement that legal aid is a good thing. It also revealed the public believe legal aid is more widely available than it actually is.

More than half (53%) thought legal aid is available for domestic violence cases, while 73% said it should be available—in fact it is available only if there is an injunction.

Some 44% thought legal aid is available for employment cases and 68% said it should be available, while in reality it is only available for discrimination cases. 42% thought it is available for rented housing issues and 66% said it should be available—in fact it is available only if living conditions are a threat to health or at repossession stage.

The research was conducted in the first week of January, the day after the Ministry of Justice announced the long-awaited civil legal aid review, which is due to publish its final report in 2024.

Law Society president Lubna Shuja said: ‘Services are collapsing now. We cannot afford to wait until 2024 for investment.’

Last week, the Law Society sent a letter before action to the Lord Chancellor, Dominic Raab, urging him to increase defence solicitors’ legal aid pay rates or face a judicial review.

Shuja said: ‘What is so frustrating is that a rational policy path was identified in Lord Bellamy’s comprehensive review and largely accepted, including 15% for barristers, but the key recommendation affecting solicitors—who were viewed as being in the most “parlous state”—was rejected.’

While Raab has claimed solicitors are being given a 15% rise, Law Society analysis of the offer found the increase actually amounted to 9%.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll