header-logo header-logo

MoJ cuts hammer civil legal aid

18 November 2010
Issue: 7442 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus
printer mail-detail

MoJ cuts hammer civil legal aid

The axe fell across civil and family legal aid this week as the Ministry of Justice announced its cuts.

Public funding is to be withdrawn from private and family law cases, such as divorce and child contact, and from debt, education, employment, housing, clinical negligence, immigration and welfare benefits.

However, funding will remain in place “where people’s life or liberty is at stake, or where they are at risk of serious physical harm, or immediate loss of their home”.

Consequently, legal aid is retained for asylum cases, for debt and housing matters where someone’s home is at immediate risk, and for mental health cases. It remains for judicial reviews, for some cases involving discrimination, and for legal assistance to bereaved families in inquests. In family law, it remains for cases involving domestic violence or forced marriage, mediation for family disputes, and for cases where children are being taken into care. Fees paid in civil and family cases will be reduced by ten per cent.

The consultation, Proposals for the Reform of Legal Aid in England and Wales, ends on Valentine’s Day.

It is estimated that the cuts will save £350m by 2014-2015. The Ministry of Justice is committed to cutting £2bn from its overall spend by that session.
Law Society Chief Executive Desmond Hudson said: “Legal aid clients are some of the most vulnerable in society and good legal representation where required is essential if they are to obtain justice.”

Steve Hynes, director, Legal Action Group, said: “It is worse than we expected. The cuts have fallen disproportionately on civil legal aid, and mean half a million people will have nowhere to go for advice at a time when the not-for-profit sector is also experiencing cuts.”

The proposals raised some interesting questions, he said. “Would you get advice on housing benefit—is that housing law? It seems fundamentally unjust that at a time when they are introducing a ceiling of £400, and when landlords are going to evict people who can’t pay their rent that people will lose access to free legal advice. 36,000 housing cases will be taken from scope.”

David Greene, partner, Edwin Coe LLP, said: “To some degree the consultation period and the following political discourse next Spring may set lawyers against politicians. The politicians will mix the huge policy issues here with an attack on lawyers accused of seeking to line their own pockets. Any slated attack on lawyers and their income gains political purchase but the profession will highlight the real attack on the ability of the most vulnerable to gain access to justice.”

 

Issue: 7442 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus
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