header-logo header-logo

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

MoJ cuts hammer civil legal aid

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Public funding is to be withdrawn from private and family law cases, such as divorce and child contact, and from debt, education, employment, housing, clinical negligence, immigration and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

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
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
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
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
back-to-top-scroll