Rules which required victims of domestic violence to provide evidence before gaining access to legal aid are over-restrictive and therefore unlawful, the Court of Appeal has held.
In a landmark decision, R (on the application of Rights of Women) v The Lord Chancellor [2016] EWCA Civ 91, the court ruled invalid requirements on evidence in domestic violence applications that were introduced under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASOP), reg 33.
Lord Justice Longmore held that reg 33 was invalid because it required verification of domestic violence to be given within a 24-month period before any application for legal aid, and did not cater for victims of financial abuse. The case was brought by the Public Law Project on behalf of Rights of Women (ROW), which provides free legal advice and help to women, with the backing of the Law Society.
ROW research found that more than half of women who responded to its survey said that they took no legal action as a direct result of not being eligible for legal aid. Legal aid was preserved for domestic violence cases, despite being removed for most categories of family and civil matters by LASPO. One of the main reasons for this, as Longmore LJ states in his judgment is that victims “will be intimidated and disadvantaged in legal proceedings if they are forced to represent themselves against and perhaps be cross-examined by the perpetrator of that violence”.
Emma Scott, Director of ROW, says: “For nearly three years we have known that the strict evidence requirements for legal aid have cut too many women off from the very family law remedies that could keep them and their children safe.
“The Court of Appeal has accepted our arguments that the fear of a perpetrator does not disappear after two years and recognised that forms of violence such as financial abuse are almost impossible for women to evidence.”
Chantal-Aimée Doerries QC, Chairman of the Bar, said: “The severe cuts introduced by LASPO on legal aid have led to a drastic fall in the number of people accessing legal help in family cases. This should be a matter of real concern to all.”
