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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll