Jon Robins sets the scene for a series of articles on life after legal aid
When senior members of the judiciary speak out on issues that stray into political territory, words are chosen with utmost care. But there was nothing tentative about Lady Hale’s analysis of last month’s Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. “In England, justice is open to all—like the Ritz,” said the only female justice in the Supreme Court. “Courts are, and should be, a last resort but they should be a last resort which is accessible to all, rich and poor alike. The big society will be the loser if everyone does not believe that the law is there for them.”
Inevitably, the media spotlight was distracted from “access to justice” on the day the Bill, the biggest rolling back of the legal aid scheme since it was introduced in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, was published. It was eclipsed by a political story of yet another coalition government U-turn, this time on sentencing.
Despite an unprecedented 5,000 responses to the coalition
