header-logo header-logo

19 September 2016
Issue: 7715 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

How to safeguard access to justice?

Can greater use of technology, pro bono advice and McKenzie’s Friends ever plug the gap in civil legal aid?

A new report by legal think tank Halsbury’s Law Exchange, Can we safeguard access to justice, uses real-life examples and insight from judges and practitioners to examine the state of legal aid provision in England and Wales. It raises interesting questions regarding the future use of technology and changing business practices.

In a foreword to the report, legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg QC invites the reader to imagine a graph depicting the effect of LASPO (the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which came into force in April 2013). At the beginning of 2013, there are more than 130,000 civil legal aid cases a quarter but by the summer the number has dropped by two-thirds to about 40,000 cases a quarter.

This saves the government money—civil legal aid spending drops 20% from £1,063m to £852m—but leaves people without legal representation, increases the numbers of litigants in person, puts pressure on the courts and reduces the number of lawyers specialising in the affected areas.

The government has responded by investing in technology, with initiatives such as the online court intended to help fill the gaps. Other innovations have helped, for example, a device developed by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer that helps law centres keep track of clients with chaotic lives.

However, the report poses difficult questions. Is a McKenzie Friend any substitute for professional legal advice? Who is left to help a woman who develops mental and physical health problems as a result of mental and physical abuse at the hands of her husband and family but is erroneously classified as not a domestic abuse victim by a system under strain? Practitioners predict a growth in digitally-assisted services and greater cross-over between law centres and grassroots charities such as food banks.

Whatever the future holds, practitioners in the field agree the path is unlikely to be smooth. The report has been published ahead of the Halsbury’s Law Exchange Debate on 22 September at One Great George Street, London, on the same topic.

Issue: 7715 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll