• Home
  • Subscribe
  • Case table
  • About
  • Topics
    • Legal topics
      • Children
      • Criminal
      • Employment
      • Environment
      • European
      • Freedom of Information
      • Immigration/Extradition
      • Inquests and Inquiries
      • Family
      • International
      • Media
      • Medical
      • Mental Health
      • Politics / Public Order
      • Prisons
      • Religion
      • Terrorism
    • Introduction to Human Rights
    • Article 2
    • Article 3
    • Article 4
    • Article 5
    • Article 6
    • Article 7
    • Article 8
    • Article 9
    • Article 10
    • Article 11
    • Article 12
    • Article 13
    • Article 14
    • Protocol 1 Article 1
    • Protocol 1 Article 3
    • Protocol 2 Article 1
  • Archive
  • Contact

UK Human Rights Blog

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« New Blawg Review at Pink Tape
Legal aid cuts, the aftermath »

Legal aid cuts announced, significant reduction in funding of civil and family cases

November 15, 2010 by Adam Wagner

Updated x 2 | The lord chancellor Ken Clarke has announced plans for significant cuts to the legal aid system, which provides funding for legal representation to those who otherwise cannot afford it. The plans were largely as expected and will be open to consultation.

Update: The MoJ has published full details of the plans:

  • The main documents, including impact assessments are here
  • The proposals can be downloaded here
  • Views on the consultation can be submitted online here
  • A summary of the plans can be found here.
  • The consultation on proposals for reform for civl litigation funding (the Jackson review) is here.

The scale of the cuts is expected to be around £350m out of the £2.2bm budget, which is just over 15%. Some of the plans had been leaked with partial accuracy by the Sunday Telegraph.

 

Update x 2: Read a summary of the reaction to the cuts here and an analysis of the underlying rational here.

The Law Society, which published its own access to justice review today, has said that “only the poorest of the poor will continue to be eligible for legal aid” and that the proposals represent “a sharp break from the long-standing bipartisan consensus that effective access to justice is essential to underpin the rule of law“.

Mr Clarke opened by saying that no other government in the world believes that the state should pay for so much legal representation as it currently does in the UK, and that the Ministry of Justice will have to cut its budget by 23% overall.

A full summary of the proposals can be found in the Ministry of Justice press release. What follows is a basic summary of some of the changes.

The scope of criminal legal aid is to remain unchanged, but the civil and family legal aid system will be significantly reformed. Some civil legal aid will still be available in more serious cases which threaten life and liberty, but cases involving education, employment, immigration and personal injury cases will be reduced.

As expected, legal aid in family court cases will be significantly cut. In clinical negligence cases, it will be withdrawn completely, as it will in employment cases. There will, however, be an emergency fund for special cases in some areas.

All people with more than £1,000 capital will be required to make a £100 contribution to their costs. This is not quite what Sunday Telegraph reported, which was that nobody with £1,000 capital will have access to public funding.

Will human rights assist?

Although human rights law can assist by compelling the state to provide legal aid, this only applies in limited circumstances.

In the criminal context, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that everyone has a right “to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require.” But states have been given wide discretion as to the definition of “sufficient means”. You do not have to be poor to get legal aid: in April, three ex-MPs being prosecuted for expenses fiddling were granted legal aid to fight (some of) their cases. And it must be in the interests of justice to grant assistance. A person can also be asked to pay the state back if s/he is found guilty.

Other articles of the Convention can also provide a right to legal aid. For example, Article 2 (the right to life) can sometimes compel the state to fund an investigation into a death, which can include legal representation for relatives of the dead. Mr Clarke announced that this is to remain, although realistically he could not have withdrawn such funding due to commitments under human rights law.

New costs arrangements

The Justice Secretary also announced that the Jackson Report on the costs in civil cases in England and Wales will be largely implemented, and particularly proposals involving no-win-no-fee cases, as well as the introduction of US-style contingency fees, where lawyers take a cut of their clients’ winnings. This is of direct relevance to the legal aid system, as funding arrangements such as no-win-no-fee will increasingly be the only way for those who cannot afford a lawyer to secure legal representation.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read more:

  • Update – Do we spend more on legal aid than other countries?
  • Update – Legal aid cuts, the aftermath
  • Ministry of Justice plans for fundamental reform and “better law”
  • How much free work should a lawyer do?

Rate this:

Share:

  • Email
  • Digg

Like this:

Like
Be the first to like this post.

Posted in Art. 2 | Right to life, Art. 6 | Right to Fair Trial, Criminal, Employment, Family, In the news, Medical | Tagged legal aid cuts | 1 Comment

One Response

  1. on November 15, 2010 at 5:16 pm Matthew Taylor (MTPT)

    In addition to the payment of £100 by those with >£1,000 in capital, there’s also (apparently) to be a bar on anyone with a “disposable income” >£8,000pa receiving legal aid. This seems eminently sensible, but turns on what’s treated as disposable.



Comments are closed.

  • Welcome!

    UK Human Rights Blog is written by members of 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscription is free.

    Editorial Team

    • Adam Wagner
    • Rosalind English
    • Angus McCullough QC

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 10,250 other followers

  • Browse by legal topic

  • RSS Recommended

    • Assange v The Swedish Prosecution Authority [2012] UKSC 22 (30 May 2012) May 30, 2012
      Supreme Court rules by 5-2 majority that Julian Assange must be extradited to Sweden. Definition of "judicial authority" is a wide one.
    • Supreme Court judgment: Assange v Swedish Judicial Authority - Carl Gardner May 30, 2012
    • Julian Assange's extradition stayed thanks to quick legal footwork | Joshua Rozenberg | Law | guardian.co.uk May 30, 2012
    • New Judgment: Assange v The Swedish Judicial Authority [2012] UKSC 22 May 30, 2012
    • What if Julian Assange loses in the Supreme Court? May 29, 2012
    • Secret justice concessions won't silence its critics | The Spectator May 29, 2012
    • ICLR's case summaries are now on Guardian Law | Daniel Hoadley | Law | guardian.co.uk May 29, 2012
    • The High Court is unable to agree on Twitter Joke Trial appeal - David Allen Green May 28, 2012
  • RSS Case law

    • Assange v The Swedish Prosecution Authority [2012] UKSC 22 (30 May 2012) May 30, 2012
      Supreme Court rules by 5-2 majority that Julian Assange must be extradited to Sweden. Definition of "judicial authority" is a wide one.
    • SCOPPOLA v. ITALY (No. 3) - 126/05 [2012] ECHR 868 (22 May 2012) May 23, 2012
      ECtHR Grand Chamber: automatic and indiscriminate disenfranchisement of prisoners unlawful but up to individual states how to implement changes were such a ban exist
    • Dishonesty in entry clearance applications May 21, 2012
      An Upper Tribunal (UT) decision confirms that, where an application for entry clearance is “marred by dishonesty” – whether in the applicant’s knowledge or not and even where the applicant is presently eligible for entry – it is not a disproportionate response for the Home Secretary to refuse the application, even in light of Article 8
    • MM and AO (A Child), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 668 (18 May 2012) May 18, 2012
      Secretary of State acted lawfully in not ordering independent inquiry into 2009 protest at Immigration Detention Centre. Challenge by children separated from parents during protest and claiming pschiatric damage as result.
    • British Sky Broadcasting Ltd & Ors, R (on the application of) v Chelmsford Crown Court [2012] EWHC 1295 (Admin) (17 May 2012) May 17, 2012
      Sky, BBC, ITN etc. succeed in JR of decision by court to order production of 100+ hours of video footage to Essex Police of Dale Farm protesters: "... there were no reasonable grounds for believing that the footage of over 100 hours included material likely to be of substantial value to the investigation"
    • Humphreys v Revenue and Customs [2012] UKSC 18 (16 May 2012) May 16, 2012
      Supreme Court: paying child tax credit to "main" care giver not discriminatory under art.14 ECHR to father caring for child 3 days per week. The specific test for justifying discrimination in the context of state benefits is that with questions of social and economic strategy the Court will generally respect the legislature’s policy choice unless i […]
  • Wikio - Top Blogs - Law
  • UKHRB on Twitter

    • #Assange loses SC appeal 5 votes to 2. Like to be #ECtHR application to block #extradition 4 hours ago
    • #Assange Supreme Court decision imminent bbc.co.uk/news/uk-182594… #extradition 5 hours ago
    • Also fresh on the blog- The Erika: Cour de Cassation has its thinking cap on by David Hart QC ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/05/29/the… 5 hours ago
    • Good morning all, @IsabelMcArdle here. Justive and Security Bill- the govt is not for turning by Angela Patrick ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/05/29/jus… 5 hours ago
    Follow @ukhumanrightsb
  • Adam Wagner on Twitter

    • RT @simonmckay: Catt v Metropolitan Police. Important case on #protest and #dataretention. Would be surprised if it was not appealed:htt ... 42 minutes ago
    • For anyone who hasn't read it > Justice & Security Bill: Government is not for turning - Angela Patrick of @justicehq: wp.me/pJiO3-3Gc 59 minutes ago
    • RT @CrowtherSimon: Excellent piece by @justicehq's Angela Patrick on Just& Sec Bill on @ukhumanrightsb ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/05/29/jus… #secretj ... 59 minutes ago
    • RT @I_am_peevee: @AdamWagner1 @gideonconn "and excellent artist"... 1 hour ago
    • My friend and brilliant musician @GideonConn has a brand new video: youtube.com/watch?v=tX-ZrZ… 1 hour ago
    • Excellent from @joshuarozenerg on the potentially embarrassing mess surrounding the #Assange ruling is.gd/4Qs0h3 1 hour ago
    Follow @adamwagner1
  • RSS Recent posts

    • The Erika: Cour de Cassation has its thinking cap on May 29, 2012 David Hart QC
    • Justice and Security Bill: The Government is not for turning – Angela Patrick May 29, 2012 1 Crown Office Row
    • We need to think about Kevin May 29, 2012 Rosalind English
    • Key Justice and Security Bill resources May 29, 2012 Adam Wagner
    • Free Speech at Work: A 1COR Seminar and Mock Trial – Wed 27th June May 29, 2012 1 Crown Office Row
    • Time and time again: Article 6 to the rescue May 27, 2012 David Hart QC
    • Prisoner voting, Bratza’s replacement and peaceful protest – The Human Rights Roundup May 27, 2012 Wessen Jazrawi
    • The case for letting prisoners vote – Reuven Ziegler May 24, 2012 1 Crown Office Row
  • Links

    • 1 Crown Office Row
    • 1COR Human Rights Update
    • 1COR resources
    • A(nother) Lawyer Writes
    • Ashley Connick's Blog
    • AVMA Blog
    • BAILII
    • Beneath the Wig
    • British Institute of Human Rights
    • Cearta.ie
    • Charon QC
    • David Allen Green
    • ECHR Blog
    • ECHR News
    • Education Law Blog
    • EJIL Talk!
    • eutopia Law
    • Family Lore
    • Free Movement Blog
    • Garrulous Law
    • Guardian Legal Network
    • Halsbury's Law Exchange
    • Head of Legal
    • Human Rights in Ireland
    • Inforrm's Blog
    • Inner Temple Current Awareness
    • Jack of Kent
    • Jailhouse Lawyer's Blog
    • Joint Council for Welfare of Immigrants
    • Joshua Rozenberg's Blog
    • Law and Lawyers
    • Law Think
    • Lawbore
    • Lawyer Watch
    • Legal Week Legal Village
    • Meeja Law
    • Mental Health Law Online
    • Nearly Legal
    • Panopticon Blog
    • PHD Studies in Human Rights
    • Pink Tape
    • RightsNI
    • RPC Privacy Blog
    • Strasbourg Observers
    • The Human Rights Blog
    • The Justice Gap
    • The Magistrate's Blog
    • The Pupillage Blog
    • The Small Places
    • The Time Blawg
    • UK Constitutional Law Group blog
    • UK Freedom of Information Blog
    • UK Immigration Law Blog
    • UK Supreme Court Blog
    • Venables legal resources
    • Watching the Law
  • Disclaimer

    This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Theme: Customized MistyLook by Sadish.


loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.