header-logo header-logo

19 March 2015
Issue: 7645 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus , Profession
printer mail-detail

A manifesto for legal aid

Legal aid lawyers have launched a Manifesto for Legal Aid, calling on the government to “immediately review” the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Laspo).

The document, launched this week, urges a broad raft of changes that could be implemented “swiftly” and without “significant additional expenditure”. They include: considering where children and other vulnerable groups are disadvantaged by Laspo, and amending appropriately; reversing changes to judicial review; developing a new process for exceptional funding; and abolishing the mandatory telephone gateway as the only route to accessing certain civil legal aid services.

The Legal Aid Practitioners Group is also calling for a halt on moves to reintroduce the “residence test”, and wants a new discretion to grant legal aid to ineligible people where there would be an overall saving to the taxpayer. The Manifesto launch follows a devastating Justice Select Committee report last week into the impact of the Laspo reforms, which concluded that the Ministry of Justice has failed to demonstrate value for money for taxpayers.

It found that the Laspo reforms created knock-on costs for other parts of government, failed to target legal aid at those who need it most and did not discourage unnecessary litigation. The report found the number of people receiving advice often fell far short of government predictions, for example, there was an 85% shortfall in the number of debt advice cases. It also noted “surprising” cases where exceptional funding was not granted, for example, “an illiterate woman with learning, hearing and speech difficulties” facing a child contact application.

Only 16 grants had been made by July 2014. The report concludes the scheme “is not acting as a safety net” and called for more highly trained staff to act as gatekeepers.

It further calls on the government to uphold the rule of law and to heed the warnings of key stakeholders in the justice system (including the judiciary) as to the knock-on effect of the denial of justice on society generally and the reputation of the justice system.

Issue: 7645 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
Litigators digesting Mazur are being urged to tighten oversight and compliance. In his latest 'Insider' column for NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School provides a cut out and keep guide to the ruling’s core test: whether an unauthorised individual is ‘in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual’
Conflicting county court rulings have left landlords uncertain over whether they can force entry after tenants refuse access. In this week's NLJ, Edward Blakeney and Ashpen Rajah of Falcon Chambers outline a split: some judges permit it under CPR 70.2A, others insist only Parliament can authorise such powers
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
back-to-top-scroll