Justice cuts to be 50% more than first thought

19 October 2010 by

Updated x 2full details of review below |  The much-heralded Ministry of Justice budget cuts will be announced shortly as part of the government spending review. Previously, it had been reported that the department’s budget would be cut by around 20%, or £2bn (see our post). However, over the weekend the Observer reported that the cut would be much larger, running to £3bn – around 30% of the total budget – which represents a 50% increase on the original figure.

The justice minister Ken Clarke is believed to have had to take an extra hit “after the defence secretary, Liam Fox, and Michael Gove at education won more generous agreements than previously expected“.

As to where the cuts will come from, the article reveals little new information. The first major area is legal aid, on which £887.1m was spent in 2008/9 alone. It was already widely expected that public funding would be slashed in divorce and family law cases; the head of the Family Division predicted as much recently when he said “you do not need a crystal ball to see that legal aid for private law proceedings is likely to be further diminished if not abolished”. Legal aid will be hit in other areas too:

Government insiders confirmed that the legal aid budget was a big target and that funds would be limited to the most deserving cases. It is understood that ministers intend to limit the amount of legal aid to people going through complex marital disputes and divorce cases. Immigration and medical negligence cases could also be targeted.

The MoJ may argue that some of the impact will be mitigated by the divorce courts becoming more streamlined and cheaper. The Times reported this morning that the divorce court system will be revolutionised as part of a Whitehall review, with the role of lawyers to be reduced to a bare minimum and mediation becoming compulsory as a first step. David Norgrove, who is chairing the review, said the system is under “tremendous strain“.

Mediation has been presented as a cure-all before, notably in the 1999 civil justice reforms. But compulsory pre-court mediation needs willing parties, or it will be reduced to parties spending more money going through the motions in order that they can get into court. And mediation does not necessarily mean “lawyer-free”. Family legal aid providers have also made clear that they will not accept the cuts without a fight, and the Law Society recently won a judicial review of the Legal Service Commission’s legal aid tendering process. This victory may be short-lived, however, and the future is even less clear given that the LSC itself will soon be abolished and its functions absorbed into the Ministry of Justice.

A second source of cuts will be prisons. According to the leaked documents which the Observer has obtained, by 2014 more than £200m of savings will be found from sentencing reforms that are likely to see fewer short-term prison sentences with thousands diverted into community-based punishments. This is again unsurprising. As I posted here, the prison service is the Ministry of Justice’s second largest expense, costing around £2bn per year. And the Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has made no secret of his ambition to cut prison numbers. Not all agree with this approach, however: the Civitas thinktank recently argued that increasing prison numbers would in fact save money. Even if Civitas is right, its argument is based on an holistic approach to crime prevention which the current department by department approach to cuts would probably mitigate against.

A third area mentioned by the Observer is the closing of county and magistrates courts. This has been known about for months now, and in fact the savings will only amount to a tiny fraction of the overall bill. So, realistically, it will be legal aid, prisons and MoJ staff salaries which will see the largest cuts, as was always obvious given that these outgoings amount for a huge proportion of the total MoJ budget.

So, bad news if you are planning on getting divorced and would have qualified for legal aid, and potentially worse news if you are an MoJ staff member. For those who are thinking about committing lower level crimes, the news may be better, given that you may not have to go to prison after all.

It was already hard to imagine a 20% cut; it is even more difficult to see how the overburdened UK justice system will survive a reduction in size by a third. It is to be hoped that the legal aid slack will be picked up by charities, no-win-no-fee agreements, lawyers acting pro-bono and a justice system which is made easier to understand and less expensive to use. But this will require some seriously creative solutions from the ‘big’ society, and it is possible that many will suffer in the meantime.

Update, 19 Oct 2010: Channel 4 News say that 14,000 jobs will go at the MoJ

Update, 20 Oct 2010: Full details of the spending review can be found on the Treasury website here. The full review is here, and the figures for the Ministry of Justice can be found on page 10: total 23% reduction over 4 years. The Law Society Gazette’s analysis is that justice spending will fall to £7bn from £9.5bn over four years:

Osborne said the MoJ will seek to make savings by reform of sentencing, improving the treatment given to mentally disordered offenders and through the increased use of public/private sector initiatives to reduce re-offending.

There will, he said, be reform to the criminal justice system, the closure of ‘underused’ courts and a reduction in the legal aid bill. He said the Law Officers Department – comprising the Offices of the Attorney General and Solicitor General – will see a 24% reduction to its budget, and stressed that the Crown Prosecution Service will be required to ‘greatly’ reduce its ‘inflated cost base’.

He said there needed to be access to justice but at a ‘fair cost’ to the tax payer.

The Ministry of Justice have also released a statement, which is reproduced by the Law Society Gazette:

The Ministry of Justice is beginning a programme of radical change. By 2015 we will have fundamentally reformed the way in which we provide justice. That work has already begun and in the coming months we will:

  • Launch a consultation on proposals to reform the legal aid system;
  • Publish a green paper on sentencing and rehabilitation;
  • Announce the outcome of the consultation on the closure of 157 under-utilised courts; and
  • Increase our transparency by publishing data on our performance and spending.

‘The department will manage its reductions by undertaking a challenging reform programme; transforming the department so it is more efficient and generates significant savings in order to allow resources to be focussed on key priorities, by:

  • Saving £1bn from administration and frontline efficiency, including a one third reduction in administration – our largest single saving;
  • The courts and tribunals system will be brought together in a single agency to ensure justice is delivered efficiently;
  • We are reducing our central London estate from eighteen buildings to four, saving £40m;
  • We will reduce and reorganise our arm’s length bodies to ensure services are being provided in the most efficient way;
  • A shared services model will be rolled out across the whole department making use of existing assets, capability and best practice;
  • We will reduce spending on courts and legal aid by developing and increasing awareness of access to alternative ways to resolve disputes; and
  • Plans for a 1,500 place new-for-old prison will be deferred to the next spending review period, while we develop a sustainable and cost effective prison capacity strategy. Spending on new IT and court projects will be limited to essential capacity.

‘By taking these tough decisions we will be able to punish and rehabilitate offenders more effectively, focus access to justice on those who need it most while cutting the costs of the justice system:

  • We will continue to lock up dangerous and serious offenders;
  • We will reform sentencing to rehabilitate offenders more effectively. The reforms will stabilise the prison population and then start to reduce it by 2014/15. We expect that by the end of the spending review period the number of prisoners will be around 3,000 lower than it is today;
  • We will increase the use of restorative justice and tough community penalties;
  • We will harness private sector expertise and innovation to make prisons places of hard work and purposeful training;
  • We will pay by results and use private sector investment as well as the voluntary and public sector experience to reduce
  • The government will take forward proposals to invest in mental health liaison and diversion services at police stations and courts, to divert mentally ill offenders and drug addicts into treatment;
  • We will consult on how to channel legal aid and related spend to the cases that most require it, saving £350m, subject to the outcome of consultation; and
  • Capital funding will be focused on maintaining the prison estate and funding essential new capacity and key invest to save projects.

‘The Ministry of Justice is also taking forward ideas suggested under the spending challenge, including reforms to:

  • Outline plans for changes to court business hours, including weekend and evening sessions, in the forthcoming magistrates courts business strategy. This will improve access to justice and make greater use of the court estate.

Justice secretary Kenneth Clarke said: ‘We need to create a justice system that punishes the guilty, reduces re-offending, protects our liberties, and helps those most in need. Over the period of this spending settlement the Ministry of Justice will be transformed into a lean, transparent, and affordable department.’’

 

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

Read more:

1 comment;


  1. I have recently had my divorce and financial order completed by an online service. I was sceptical at first but must say the service provided was exemplary. The staff were professional and friendly and it took less time than some of my friends “amicable” divorces.

    Most divorce cases settle, which is a fact so if most cases can be mediated then surely these online services can finish the job, i.e the paperwork without the parties having to spend thousands on lawyers. Yes they can take their mediated agreements to lawyers to ensure that the settlement is fair, and pay for the advice, but they can then get the paperwork done online. I think this will be the way forward in the future and the Government knows this.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


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

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


7/7 Bombings 9/11 A1P1 Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology birds directive blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity circumcision citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Cologne Commission on a Bill of Rights common buzzard common law communications competition confidentiality confiscation order conscientious objection consent conservation constitution contact order contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Criminal Legal Aid criminal records Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty declaration of incompatibility defamation DEFRA Democracy village deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention devolution Dignitas dignity Dignity in Dying diplomacy director of public prosecutions disability Disability-related harassment disciplinary hearing disclosure Discrimination Discrimination law disease divorce DNA doctors does it matter? domestic violence Dominic Grieve don't ask don't ask don't tell don't tell Doogan and Wood double conviction DPP guidelines drones duty of care ECHR economic and social rights economic loss ECtHR Education election Employment Environment environmental information Equality Act Equality Act 2010 ethics Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice european disability forum European Sanctions Blog Eurozone euthanasia evidence Exclusion extra-jurisdictional reach of ECHR extra-territoriality extradition extradition act extradition procedures extradition review extraordinary rendition Facebook Facebook contempt facial recognition fair procedures Fair Trial faith courts fake news Family family courts family law family legal aid Family life fatal accidents act Fertility fertility treatment FGM fisheries fishing rights foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Association Freedom of Expression freedom of information Freedom of Information Act 2000 freedom of movement freedom of speech free speech game birds gangbo gang injunctions Garry Mann gary dobson Gary McFarlane gay discrimination Gay marriage gay rights gay soldiers Gaza Gaza conflict Gender General Dental Council General Election General Medical Council genetic discrimination genetic engineering genetic information genetics genetic testing Google government Grenfell grooming Gun Control gwyneth paltrow gypsies habitats habitats protection Halsbury's Law Exchange hammerton v uk happy new year harassment Hardeep Singh Haringey Council Harkins and Edwards Health healthcare health insurance Heathrow heist heightened scrutiny Henry VII Henry VIII herd immunity hereditary disorder High Court of Justiciary Hirst v UK HIV HJ Iran HM (Iraq) v The Secretary of state for the home department [2010] EWCA Civ 1322 Holder holkham beach holocaust homelessness Home Office Home Office v Tariq homeopathy hooding Hounslow v Powell House of Commons Housing housing benefits Howard League for Penal Reform how judges decide cases hra damages claim Hrant Dink HRLA HS2 hs2 challenge hts http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/04/11/us-state-department-reports-on-uk-human-rights/ Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority human genome human rights Human Rights Act Human Rights Act 1998 human rights advocacy Human rights and the UK constitution human rights commission human rights conventions human rights damages Human Rights Day human rights decisions Human Rights Information Project human rights news Human Rights Watch human right to education human trafficking hunting Huntington's Disease HXA hyper injunctions Igor Sutyagin illegality defence immigration Immigration/Extradition Immigration Act 2014 immigration appeals immigration detention immigration judge immigration rules immunity increase of sanction India Indonesia Infrastructure Planning Committee inherent jurisdiction inherited disease Inhuman and degrading treatment injunction Inquest Inquests insult insurance insurmountable obstacles intelligence services act intercept evidence interception interests of the child interim remedies international international conflict international criminal court international humanitarian law international human rights international human rights law international law international treaty obligations internet internet service providers internment internship inuit investigation investigative duty in vitro fertilisation Iran iranian bank sanctions Iranian nuclear program Iraq Iraqi asylum seeker Iraq War Ireland irrationality islam Israel Italy iTunes IVF ivory ban jackson reforms Janowiec and Others v Russia ( Japan Jason Smith Jeet Singh Jefferies Jeremy Corbyn jeremy hunt job Jogee John Hemming John Terry joint enterprise joint tenancy Jon Guant Joseph v Spiller journalism judaism judges Judges and Juries judging Judicial activism judicial brevity judicial deference judicial review Judicial Review reform judiciary Julian Assange jurisdiction jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Act Justice and Security Bill Justice and Security Green Paper Justice Human Rights Awards JUSTICE Human Rights Awards 2010 just satisfaction Katyn Massacre Kay v Lambeth Kay v UK Ken Clarke Ken Pease Kerry McCarthy Kettling Kings College Klimas koran burning Labour Lady Hale lansley NHS reforms LASPO Law Commission Law Pod UK Law Society Law Society of Scotland leave to enter leave to remain legal aid legal aid cuts Legal Aid desert Legal Aid Reforms legal blogs Legal Certainty legal naughty step Legal Ombudsman legal representation legitimate expectation let as a dwelling Leveson Inquiry Levi Bellfield lewisham hospital closure lgbtq liability Libel libel reform Liberal Democrat Conference Liberty libraries closure library closures Libya licence conditions licence to shoot life insurance life sentence life support limestone pavements limitation lisbon treaty Lithuania Litigation litvinenko live exports local authorities locked in syndrome london borough of merton London Legal Walk London Probation Trust Lord Bingham Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Blair Lord Goldsmith lord irvine Lord Judge speech Lord Kerr Lord Lester Lord Neuberger Lord Phillips Lord Rodger Lord Sumption Lord Taylor LSC tender luftur rahman machine learning MAGA Magna Carta mail on sunday Majority Verdict Malcolm Kennedy malice Margaret Thatcher Margin of Appreciation margin of discretion Maria Gallastegui marriage material support maternity pay Matthew Woods Mattu v The University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust [2011] EWHC 2068 (QB) Maya the Cat Mba v London Borough Of Merton McKenzie friend Media and Censorship Medical medical liability medical negligence medical qualifications medical records medicine mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Capacity Act 2005 Mental Health mental health act mental health advocacy mental health awareness Mental Health Courts Mental illness merits review MGN v UK michael gove Midwives migrant crisis Milly Dowler Ministerial Code Ministry of Justice Ministry of Justice cuts misfeasance in public office modern slavery morality morocco mortuaries motherhood Motor Neurone disease Moulton Mousa MP expenses Mr Gul Mr Justice Eady MS (Palestinian Territories) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department murder murder reform Musician's Union Muslim NADA v. SWITZERLAND - 10593/08 - HEJUD [2012] ECHR 1691 naked rambler Naomi Campbell nationality National Pro Bono Week national security Natural England nature conservation naturism Nazi negligence Neuberger neuroscience Newcastle university news News of the World new Supreme Court President NHS NHS Risk Register Nick Clegg Nicklinson Niqaab Noise Regulations 2005 Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance nursing nursing home Obituary Occupy London offensive jokes Offensive Speech offensive t shirt oil spill olympics open justice oppress OPQ v BJM orchestra Osama Bin Laden Oxford University paramountcy principle parental rights parenthood parking spaces parliamentary expenses parliamentary expenses scandal Parliamentary sovereignty Parliament square parole board passive smoking pastor Terry Jones patents Pathway Students Patrick Quinn murder Pensions persecution personal data Personal Injury personality rights perversity Peter and Hazelmary Bull PF and EF v UK Phil Woolas phone hacking phone taps physical and mental disabilities physician assisted death Pinnock Piracy Plagiarism planning planning human rights planning system plebgate POCA podcast points Poland Police police investigations police liability police misconduct police powers police surveillance Policy Exchange report political judges Politics Politics/Public Order poor reporting Pope Pope's visit Pope Benedict portal possession proceedings power of attorney PoW letters to ministers pre-nup pre-nuptial Pre-trial detention predator control pregnancy press press briefing press freedom Prince Charles prince of wales princess caroline of monaco principle of subsidiarity prior restraint prison Prisoners prisoners rights prisoners voting prisoner vote prisoner votes prisoner voting prison numbers Prisons prison vote privacy privacy injunction privacy law through the front door Private life private nuisance private use proceeds of crime Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecution Protection of Freedoms Act Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest protest camp protest rights Protocol 15 psychiatric hospitals Public/Private public access publication public authorities Public Bodies Bill public inquiries public interest public interest environmental litigation public interest immunity Public Order Public Sector Equality Duty putting the past behind quango quantum quarantine Queen's Speech queer in the 21st century R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 895 R (on the application of) v The General Medical Council [2013] EWHC 2839 (Admin) R (on the application of EH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2569 (Admin) R (on the application of G) v The Governors of X School Rabone and another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2 race relations Rachel Corrie Radmacher Raed Salah Mahajna Raed Saleh Ramsgate raptors rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion resuscitation RightsInfo right to die right to family life right to life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials security services sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa south african constitution Spain special advocates spending cuts Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance swine flu Syria Tax Taxi technology Terrorism terrorism act tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine unfair consultation universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vaccination vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

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.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: