header-logo header-logo

20 June 2019
Issue: 7845 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Legal aid focus
printer mail-detail

Save criminal justice

Significant cuts have brought system to its knees, report warns 

The Law Society has called for the legal aid means test to be uprated, following a devastating report into the state of the criminal justice system.

Published last week, the report, ‘Justice on Trial 2019’ details a shortage of criminal law solicitors due to low fees for legal aid work. The average age of a criminal duty solicitor across the whole of England and Wales is now 47 years, a demographic that means areas of the country could be left unrepresented in the future.

The report criticises ‘release under investigation’, which leaves suspects and victims in limbo for months while police decide whether to pursue the case. Disclosure delays can prolong unnecessary legal processes.

Many people on low incomes who are accused of a crime are forced to pay fees or contributions they can’t afford due to the legal aid means test. Those who sit above the legal aid threshold incur an ‘innocence tax’—they can be found not guilty but, since 2012, can only claim back costs at legal aid rates, which often leaves a 50%-75% shortfall. Meanwhile, court closures are making it harder for many people on low incomes to attend hearings.

The society also supports the introduction of an independent legal aid task force to analyse the funding required to make the system sustainable; reducing delays by stopping courts from using ‘warned’, ‘block’ and ‘floating’ lists of cases that might not go ahead; and increasing remuneration rates to retain lawyers in the criminal law field.

Other key recommendations were for the Defence Solicitor Call Centre (DSCC) to be replaced by an automated system, and for the introduction of a centralised IT system for booking legal visits to prisoners.

Issue: 7845 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Legal aid focus
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
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
back-to-top-scroll