header-logo header-logo

Too high a price to pay?

28 October 2011 / Deborah Evans
Issue: 7487 / Categories: Opinion , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Deborah Evans takes a critical look at the proposals in the Legal Aid Bill

In a just and moral society, an uninhibited access to justice should be available to all people, regardless of their means. It is one of the most important cornerstones of a modern civilisation. This is why many members of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) are gravely worried about proposals in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Bill, which is currently going through Parliament.

The proposals to restrict conditional fee agreements (CFAs) and to cut legal aid for victims of clinical negligence have some unjust consequences for injured people.

It is deeply unfair for victims to be made to use part of their damages to meet legal costs. Damages are intended to help compensate people for their pain and suffering. Victims do not choose to be injured. They should not pay for someone else’s mistake. Damages are not “winnings”—money does not “make it better” but it does help a victim live with the

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