header-logo header-logo

A manifesto for legal aid

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

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

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