header-logo header-logo

18 November 2010
Issue: 7442 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus
printer mail-detail

MoJ cuts hammer civil legal aid

MoJ cuts hammer civil legal aid

The axe fell across civil and family legal aid this week as the Ministry of Justice announced its cuts.

Public funding is to be withdrawn from private and family law cases, such as divorce and child contact, and from debt, education, employment, housing, clinical negligence, immigration and welfare benefits.

However, funding will remain in place “where people’s life or liberty is at stake, or where they are at risk of serious physical harm, or immediate loss of their home”.

Consequently, legal aid is retained for asylum cases, for debt and housing matters where someone’s home is at immediate risk, and for mental health cases. It remains for judicial reviews, for some cases involving discrimination, and for legal assistance to bereaved families in inquests. In family law, it remains for cases involving domestic violence or forced marriage, mediation for family disputes, and for cases where children are being taken into care. Fees paid in civil and family cases will be reduced by ten per cent.

The consultation, Proposals for the Reform of Legal Aid in England and Wales, ends on Valentine’s Day.

It is estimated that the cuts will save £350m by 2014-2015. The Ministry of Justice is committed to cutting £2bn from its overall spend by that session.
Law Society Chief Executive Desmond Hudson said: “Legal aid clients are some of the most vulnerable in society and good legal representation where required is essential if they are to obtain justice.”

Steve Hynes, director, Legal Action Group, said: “It is worse than we expected. The cuts have fallen disproportionately on civil legal aid, and mean half a million people will have nowhere to go for advice at a time when the not-for-profit sector is also experiencing cuts.”

The proposals raised some interesting questions, he said. “Would you get advice on housing benefit—is that housing law? It seems fundamentally unjust that at a time when they are introducing a ceiling of £400, and when landlords are going to evict people who can’t pay their rent that people will lose access to free legal advice. 36,000 housing cases will be taken from scope.”

David Greene, partner, Edwin Coe LLP, said: “To some degree the consultation period and the following political discourse next Spring may set lawyers against politicians. The politicians will mix the huge policy issues here with an attack on lawyers accused of seeking to line their own pockets. Any slated attack on lawyers and their income gains political purchase but the profession will highlight the real attack on the ability of the most vulnerable to gain access to justice.”

 

Issue: 7442 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus
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