header-logo header-logo

18 April 2013 / Roger Smith
Issue: 7556 / Categories: Opinion , Legal aid focus , Legal services
printer mail-detail

The new model

istock_000008980544medium

What now for the victims of the legal aid cuts, asks Roger Smith

Labour’s Lord Bach fought a good deal harder in the House of Lords to defend legal aid from the coalition’s cuts than many of his colleagues. But, the key provisions of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 are now in force. Civil legal aid will never again have the comprehensive coverage that once it did: in particular, partners whose relationships break down are going to have a particularly hard time. No government, realistically, is going to restart funding at past levels. What can be done to assist the women who are most likely to be the major victims of these cuts?

Self-representation

Many more litigants will have to represent themselves. Sir Alan Ward let rip on the consequences in a well publicised judgment (Colin Wright v M Wright Supplies and another [2013] EWCA Civ 234). He was particularly incensed by the judicial time that will now have to be expended on litigants in person,

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

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
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
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
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
back-to-top-scroll