header-logo header-logo

More people eligible for legal aid

31 May 2023
Issue: 8027 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus
printer mail-detail
Lawyers have welcomed changes to the means test for legal aid, but expressed concern at the ‘slow’ rate of progress.

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) published its response to the legal aid means test review last week. Setting out measures due to come into force within the next two years, it said an extra six million people would be able to access legal aid as a result and pledged an additional £25m for legal aid per year.

The upper gross income threshold will rise from £22,325 to £34,950 for magistrates’ court representation, and from £31,884 to £34,950 for civil legal aid.

The ‘innocence tax’, under which innocent people accused of a crime have to pay for their own defence, will end—instead, everyone will be eligible for legal aid to defend themselves in the Crown Court. However, the Bar Council pointed out that those who pay for their own defence will not be reimbursed if found innocent.

Legal aid will be available to anyone under the age of 18, and to parents challenging certain medical decisions such as withdrawal of their child’s life support.

Domestic abuse victims on universal credit and seeking a protective order will no longer face a means test.

Nick Vineall KC, chair of the Bar Council, said the extension was ‘welcome as it means fewer people are excluded from access to justice, but these are slow steps of progress.

‘It has already been a year since the proposals were made and we are concerned that the changes announced will now take up to two years to be implemented.

‘In the interim, the thresholds have not been increased. The changes in relation to victims of domestic abuse are overdue, but particularly welcome. Victims and survivors of domestic abuse should not be subject to a test for legal aid.’

Law Society president Lubna Shuja said: ‘Means test eligibility has not been updated in line with inflation since 2009 despite prices having risen by 40%.

‘While the increased thresholds are welcome, we are disappointed the government is only uprating the gross income thresholds to 2019 prices, which are already out of date as the cost-of-living crisis causes prices to spiral.’ 

Issue: 8027 / 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