header-logo header-logo

Moving forward?

30 March 2012 / Toby Craig
Issue: 7507 / Categories: Opinion , Legal aid focus , Legal services , Profession
printer mail-detail

The government has failed in its attempt to promote fairer, quicker & cheaper justice, says Toby Craig

It seems far longer than 16 months since the government published its consultation documents on the reform of legal aid and civil litigation in November 2010. At that stage, it was clear that change was in the pipeline, but we had little idea of how it would present itself legislatively. As we now near the end of that legislative process, it seems an opportune moment to look back over an extended period of lobbying and engagement, during which a host of campaign groups sought to provide a voice for the many women, children and vulnerable people who will lose out from these reforms.

After numerous and wide-ranging consultation responses were received and duly ignored, the government published its own response last June, simultaneously giving the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (or LASPO, the short-hand which is all too familiar to many battle-weary opponents) its first reading in the House of Commons. The Bill is

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll