header-logo header-logo

27 July 2012 / Dr Jon Robins
Issue: 7524 / Categories: Opinion , Legal services
printer mail-detail

What next?

Jon Robins canvasses opinion on the post-LASPO future

“I genuinely believe ‘access to justice’ is the hallmark of a civilised society.” So said justice secretary, Ken Clarke, introducing his government’s legal aid reforms that, some 18 months later, became the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO).

Such an apparently unequivocal assertion rather begs the question, what would the coalition government have done to the legal aid system if the justice secretary wasn’t quite so committed to “access to justice”? LASPO, of course, was predicated on one idea above all others: that of removing £350m from a total £2.2bn scheme.

Debating access

The idea of “access to justice” was the subject of a panel debate I chaired this month at the House of Commons. It was organised by the JusticeGap, together with Hackney Community Law Centre (HCLC) and speakers included former justice secretary Lord Willy Bach, who led the opposition to the LASPO Bill in the House of Lords; Roger Smith, NLJ columnist and director of Justice; the human rights

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

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
back-to-top-scroll