header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
29 May 2015 / David Burrows
Issue: 7654 / Categories: Features , Legal aid focus , Family
printer mail-detail

​Taking the hit

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7654_burrows

Does lack of clarity in the legal aid scheme prevent access to justice, asks David Burrows

A new government, a new Justice Secretary: there is no likelihood of improvement to the legal aid scheme. But is it now time to reflect on the lack of clarity—for lawyer and lay-person alike—of the present scheme? In particular it is surely time to ask whether the present process for application for legal aid—for an applicant merely to be able to apply to the court or defend a claim—is fair given the complexity of the present statutory scheme? The question of the obscurity of the scheme for application for legal aid can be tested against two recent cases on applications for domestic violence and for county court (and thus family court) committal proceedings.

In Brown v London Borough of Haringey [2015] EWCA Civ 483, [2015] All ER (D) 126 (May) the Court of Appeal concluded, after a lengthy analysis of complex legal aid statutory and regulatory provisions, that applications for legal aid for committal proceedings in civil

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll