header-logo header-logo

25 March 2016
Issue: 7692 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Trafficking victims win review

MoJ to undertake review of legal aid provision following threat of judicial review

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is to conduct an urgent review of legal aid provision for trafficking victims seeking to bring compensation claims against the perpetrators, after the High Court granted permission for a judicial review.

Parliament included a clause in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 to ensure victims could bring compensation claims against their traffickers. The Anti-Trafficking and Labour Exploitation Unit (ATLEU) argued that the way the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) had implemented the provision meant that victims were not able to access legal advice and assistance to bring claims. Support agencies Kalayaan, Medaille Trust, Migrant Help and Hope for Justice supplied evidence showing that many victims were unable to access advice because of the limited number of providers able to deal with compensation claims, and the limited number of claims each one could handle.

Mr Justice Blake granted permission to pursue the judicial review. However, shortly before the hearing, the MoJ and LAA agreed to undertake a review by the end of June, and to implement any approved recommendations as soon as possible. Following this concession, ATLEU withdrew its claim.

The review will identify whether there are barriers to advice and assistance, the causes of these and what steps should be taken.

Shu Shin Luh, Garden Court Chambers, who acted pro bono for ATLEU, says: “If the government wants to realise its commitment under the Modern Slavery Act to provide victims of trafficking and modern slavery a right to seek reparations from their traffickers, then it must ensure that there is a system in place which gives victims effective and practical access to legal advice and assistance to realise their rights.

“This hasn’t happened to date. It is hoped that with this review the lord chancellor will now adhere to his commitments toward trafficking victims to ensure they are able exercise their right to seek reparations and hold to account those who have exploited them.”

As part of the order comprising the judicial review, the government is to pay £12,000 in costs to the Access to Justice Foundation under the scheme for pro bono costs orders.

Issue: 7692 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Commercial and technology team in Cambridge strengthened by partner hire

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Hampshire firm appoints head of new family department

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Firm strengthens securities practice with partner return

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll