Legal aid reforms will be catastrophic for victims of medical negligence

22 November 2010 by

The government’s proposed reforms to legal aid will have a catastrophic effect on those who have suffered as a result of negligent medical treatment.

When Kenneth Clarke informed Parliament on Monday that

Legal aid will still routinely be available in civil and family cases where people’s life or liberty is at stake, or where there is risk of serious physical harm or the immediate loss of their home.

he clearly did not mean that the destruction of a person’s life or the suffering of seriously physical harm through the mismanagement of their medical treatment was to be included within this. If he had meant that he would have proposed at the same time that clinical negligence would continue to be funded by legal aid.

Instead of safeguarding the interests of those citizens – such as a catastrophically injured child – who find themselves in the greatest need at a time when they are least able to meet it, what Kenneth Clarke proposed is nothing short of the emasculation of the legal aid system and a full frontal attack upon access to justice.

Serious though this allegation may sound there can be little doubt that the present administration knows full well what effect its proposals will have. In truth, it does not care. It knows as both the legal aid funder of clinical negligence litigation and as the defendant compensator (as it is in the vast majority of clinical negligence cases) that access to justice is extremely costly to it in costs and damages, and that by attacking access to justice its outlay in both regards will be reduced substantially.

Of course, it has been said by the administration and will no doubt be said again and again that in substitution for legal aid there will be put in place a revised ‘no win, no fee’ system more than sufficient to meet the access to justice shortfall. This contention is spurious. The reasons are two-fold. First, the author of the revised ‘no win, no fee’ system does not agree that this is the case as is plain from his report. Secondly, the revised ‘no win, no fee’ proposals are themselves subject to serious drawbacks (a subject for another day).

In the words of Lord Justice Jackson, the author of the revised ‘no win, no fee’ system proposals, the maintenance of legal aid is crucial to his proposed changes to the no win, no fee system. Lord Justice Jackson said this about legal aid in his recent report on the funding of litigation:

Legal aid is still available for some key areas of litigation, in particular clinical negligence, housing cases and judicial review. It is vital that legal aid remains in these areas. However, the continued tightening of financial eligibility criteria, so as to exclude people who could not possibly afford to litigate, inhibits access to justice in those key areas. In my view any further tightening of the financial eligibility criteria would be unacceptable.


I do not make any recommendation in this chapter for the expansion or restoration of legal aid. I do, however, stress the vital necessity of making no further cutbacks in legal aid availability or eligibility. The legal aid system plays a crucial role in promoting access to justice at proportionate costs in key areas.

So the question must be asked why is the Government ignoring Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations, stated in the strongest terms, in relation to legal aid whilst at the same time relying upon his report in support of its other central proposal, that is the proposed change to the ‘no win, no fee’ litigation funding regime.

The answer is that this Government has no interest at all in maintaining access to justice because, as the defendant, it sees this as the problem itself.

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

Read more:


  1. acj28 says:

    Head of the clinical negligence department at Lanyon Bowdler puts forward her thoughts here: http:

  2. […] make good reading, and impliedly calls them “crass” and “Daily Mail-esque”. Henry Witcomb said they’ll be catastrophic for medical negligence victims. Nearly Legal uses mainly […]

  3. Ronald Knee says:

    Precisely, this is just what the doctor ordered. An end to those tiresome and awkward claims when an incompetent ‘doctor’ sews you up with a small vending machine still lodged inside you. “This will save us a fortune” said the health minister…..

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.




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.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights 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 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: