header-logo header-logo

13 July 2018
Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus
printer mail-detail

Legal aid restored for migrant children in care

Lawyers have welcomed the government’s U-turn on legal aid for unaccompanied and separated children in care.

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) revealed this week it will seek to amend LASPO (the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012) to bring immigration matters for such children back within the ambit of legal aid.

MoJ spokesperson for the House of Lords, Lord Keen told Parliament in a written statement this week that ‘following a judicial review brought by the Children’s Society, we have examined both the evidence presented as part of the case and our data on applications for funding… I have decided to bring these cases into the scope of legal aid to ensure access to justice.

‘The amendment will be laid in due course following discussion across government and with external stakeholders’.  

Coram Children’s Legal Centre (Coram) has estimated there are several thousand children in local authority care where immigration is the primary issue, rather than asylum or trafficking. It gives the example of a 19 year-old care leaver from Jamaica, brought to the UK aged seven with his parents, taken into care aged 15, whose leave to remain expired a year later and whose social worker did not take action to help him resolve his immigration status before he turned 18.

A Coram spokesperson said: ‘We have long urged the government to examine the impact on children’s rights of the legal aid changes and are glad they have finally listened.’ Coram is urging the government to ensure local authority frontline staff are informed of the forthcoming changes.

Bar Chairman Andrew Walker QC said ‘some very vulnerable people should now find it easier to obtain the ;egal advice and representation they need in order to resolve their immigration cases fairly and in accordance with the rule of law. 

‘This year, particularly through the Windrush scandal, the public has been made aware of how poor the Home Office’s administration and decision-making can be in far too many cases, and of the terrible impact this can have on the lives of those who are entitled to rights and protection under UK law. Legal aid is essential if rights and the protection of the law are to be meaningful, as judicial review may be the only way that those who have been treated unfairly can force the Home Office to abide by the law and to apply it correctly.’

Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll