Lady Hale on access to justice, legal aid and staying at The Ritz

28 June 2011 by

As reported by, Lady Hale, one of the 12 UK Supreme Court justices, has said in a speech to The Law Society that the government’s proposed reforms to legal aid will have a “disproportionate effect upon the poorest and most vulnerable in society“.

Although the current crop of senior judges has not been afraid to express opinions on controversial issues, it is unusual for a sitting senior judge to criticise current and controversial government plans. The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill has only just been published, and is being debated tomorrow in Parliament. The article presents the comments as a “direct challenge” to the policy. However, upon a closer reading, Lady Hale cleverly steered clear of criticising the plans in her own words, but rather quoted the government’s own analysis of the bill.

The speech was entitled Equal Access to Justice in the Big Society, and was in memory of solicitor Henry Hodge, and can be downloaded in full here (PDF). It is also republished below the page break.

Hale’s speech is a wide-ranging examination of the meaning of “access to justice”. She explains that article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right of access to the courts, and this is “one of the most precious” of our constitutional rights.

But access to he courts is “not much use without access to lawyers”, as many would say. And as the saying goes, “in England, justice is open to all – like the Ritz”. On the government’s current plans, Lady Hale said:

These plans will of course have a disproportionate effect upon the poorest and most vulnerable in society. Indeed, the government’s own equality impact statement accepts that they will have a disproportionate impact upon women, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities.

So rather than making the point in her own words, Lady Hale is in fact quoting the government’s own equality impact assessment, which it has to do by law in order to fulfil its obligations under equality legislation. The central point about equality law is that it can be lawful for a policy to have a disproportionate impact on a particular group, as long as that impact is a justified by a legitimate aim. So, if the legal aid reforms reach court by way of judicial review – which is highly likely – the government will probably argue that the legitimate  aim is to reduce public spending. Lady Hale went on, cleverly steering clear of putting an overtly personal view:

they say that this is justifiable because they are disproportionate users of the service in these areas. This is an interesting argument about which I had better not say anything more, as it is bound to come before us in one shape or form in future.

The phrase “interesting argument” may give a clue to Lady Hale’s views, and she will no doubt express them if the reforms reach the supreme court.

The speech goes on to examine different possibilities for saving money in the court system, but concludes that we need to look at the court system as a whole – including the cost of judges and courts – in order to properly compare how much we spend on “legal aid”:

If we really want to spend less on lawyers we have to be prepared to spend more on a very different style of court from the ones which we are used to. And in any event we have to be prepared to spend money on initial advice and assistance schemes because that is where most problems are solved. 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 big loser if everyone does not believe that the law is there for them.

Lady Hale just about stops short of criticising the current government’s plans, but the emphasis of her speech is on the importance of an holistic approach to access to justice. It is all very well reducing access to lawyers but given how little we spend on the court system, this may have the result of locking many people out altogether. So however much you scrimp and save, you may still miss out on that night at the Ritz. As for a fortnight holiday, forget it.

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

Read more

1 comment;

  1. Tara Davison says:

    What Lady Hale left unsaid but implied is absolutely true. Litigants in Person (LIP) are not well catered for in the Court System, they at best fumble through a maze of hard to comprehend rules. LIP if they manage to come before the Courts are disadvantaged, especially if the other party is represented as there can be no “equality of arms”.

    If the Government is to create an army of Litigants in Person then they need to funds advise centers accessable to all and make the same provision in Courts for LIP’s as they do for Barristers.

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.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas 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 diplomatic relations 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 hague convention Harry Dunn 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 procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee 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 The Round Up 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 Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


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: