header-logo header-logo

Trafficking victims win review

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

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

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