header-logo header-logo

20 March 2024
Issue: 8064 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus , Profession
printer mail-detail

Means test delays

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has delayed some of its proposed reforms to the legal aid means test until 2026, it confirmed last week

The test, which the MoJ reviewed in 2022, has not been updated in line with inflation since 2009. The delayed reforms include a ‘significant increase’ in income and capital thresholds.

Law Society president Nick Emmerson said: ‘The government is displaying a pattern of behaviour of refusing to commit resources to the justice system resulting in unmet legal need.’

However, the MoJ will this year introduce changes so that compensation payments for miscarriages of justice and certain other payments are no longer counted in the means test.

 

Issue: 8064 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll