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

15 November 2010 by

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 In clinical negligence cases, it will be withdrawn completely, as it will in employment cases.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:

1 comment;


  1. 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 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


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 blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 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 evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court 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: