header-logo header-logo

15 July 2020
Issue: 7896 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-detail

Small Change for Justice report 2020

The government spends less on the justice system per day per head than the price of a red pepper in Tesco, a report has found

A Bar Council report, Small Change for Justice, published this week, reveals just £0.39 per day per head is spent on the justice system, including the police, prison & probation, courts & tribunals, Legal Aid Agency, Crown Prosecution Service and other Ministry of Justice expenditure.

The report, by economists Professor Chalkley and Alice Chalkley and commissioned by the Bar Council, analysed spending between 2010 and 2019. The research found that overall funding for the justice system has declined by 29% in real terms per person since 2010.

However, the report also calculated how little additional funding would be needed to restore both the justice system and the police budgets to their 2010 levels.

Amanda Pinto QC, Chair of the Bar Council (pictured), said: ‘Law and order is as much about keeping the public safe as it is about access to justice.

‘We’ve seen what a lack of funding for law and order achieves―rising crime, low detection rates, long delays to cases with many collapsing before they get anywhere near a court, victims of crime denied justice, and all because government after government has scrimped on the justice budget.

‘Compared to other countries and other Whitehall budgets, UK justice is the poor relation. For just small change―22p per person more―the government could put its money where its mouth is, commit to boosting law and order and protecting the public by investing the price of a packet of hobnobs per person per week in the whole justice system.’

Read the report at: bit.ly/ 3j7TwwN.

Issue: 7896 / Categories: Legal News , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll