Lord Justice Jackson: legal aid should remain for clinical negligence

13 September 2011 by

Lord Justice Jackson spoke in strong terms last week to the Cambridge Law Faculty on the controversial topic of legal aid and legal costs reforms.

The architect of the proposed reforms to legal costs made clear his position on the government’s proposed amendments, set out in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which was reviewed by the Committee of the House of Commons today, 13 September (listen to the committee recording here). He was keen to highlight which parts of the reforms reflect he views expressed in his report, and which parts he does not consider to be in the interests of justice. He said, in summary:

First, every profession or organisation which provides a public service at public expense is quite properly and understandably pressing its own case in the present round of spending cuts. The Law Society and the judiciary quite properly press the case for retaining legal aid on the grounds of public interest. I have supported that case and continue to do so. It is the function of Government to listen to the arguments advanced by all the competing public interests and then to decide where the axe shall fall – hopefully in a manner which is least injurious to the public good. If the Government’s decision is to cut back legal aid to the extent indicated in its Consultation Response dated June 2011, then so be it, although I regret the decision for the reasons mentioned above.

Secondly, the Law Society in running a single campaign against both the Legal Aid cuts and the Jackson proposals has created certain difficulties. It is right and proper that the Law Society should be campaigning to retain the present scope of legal aid. This case clearly rests on public interest grounds, even if the campaign ultimately fails because other public interests are deemed to be greater. However, the campaign against the Jackson proposals is not based upon the public interest at all. For the reasons set out above, this campaign is in my view inimical to the public interest – although it is very much in the interests of those groups who are making disproportionate profits out of the current arrangements. Indeed, to their credit, many lawyers publicly (and even more lawyers privately) recognise that the present rules re CFAs and ATE insurance are deeply flawed and require reform along the lines I propose.

The Law Society may wish to consider whether it is representing (a) the sectional interest and viewpoint of CFA lawyers or (b) the wider public interest. Both roles are perfectly legitimate and I would not presume to criticise the Law Society, whichever decision it makes. I would, however, respectfully suggest that it may be inauspicious to combine both roles in a single campaign.

Thirdly, the Government’s approach in Part 2 of the Bill is to be commended and will, I hope, find favour with Parliament. There is, however, one caveat which needs to be stated. There is a real danger that subsections (2) to (5) of the proposed new section 58C will not achieve the desired objective. Moreover even if these provisions do achieve the desired objective, they will do so in an extremely expensive and inefficient manner. This is, of course, the prerogative of Parliament. Indeed that may not matter greatly if public funds are plentiful and expense is no object, which seemingly was the case when recoverability was introduced in 2000. However, this may not be the case now. Accordingly both the Government and Parliament may care to look again at section 58C (2) – (5) and to consider an obvious alternative means of achieving the same objective at much less cost to the public purse.

The above comments are offered in a constructive spirit. I shall not respond to any of the personal attacks which have been levelled against me in recent months, save to say this. I do not speak on behalf of any particular sector or vested interest. The views which I put forward reflect my conclusions (formed after many months of research, consultation and analysis) as to where the public interest lies. Furthermore, the recommendations contained in the Costs Review Final Report have been endorsed by the Judicial Executive Board and the Judicial Steering Group.

His views on clinical negligence funding were also of interest. He suggests two alternatives to the current proposals for funding in this area, which he considers would be impractical, costly and complex, as well as failing to target the appropriate claimants. In his words, Section 58C (2)-(5) of the Bill provides that in “any viable clinical negligence case the costs of the claimant’s expert reports should fall upon the public purse – regardless of whether the claimant finally wins or loses”.

His two proposals are:

First method. The first possible approach would be to retain legal aid for clinical negligence cases generally. I have made out the best case that I can for such retention in my Final Report, but appreciate that the Government (which has to weigh up the competing claims of different public interests) has so far rejected that approach. I therefore say no more on this aspect, beyond (a) expressing my personal agreement with the Judiciary’s view and the Law Society’s view that clinical negligence should remain within the scope of legal aid and (b) commenting that this issue might possibly be reconsidered.

Second and alternative method. Let me now assume that the first solution is rejected, because Government has made a decision and Parliament will endorse that decision. I then come to the second possible course of action. Here one is on much stronger ground, because this approach will lead to considerable savings of public money.

The solution which I propose is that (a) section 58C (2) to (5) and the proposed regulations thereunder should be scrapped and (b) legal aid should be retained for clinical negligence but solely in respect of the costs of expert reports.

It will be interesting to watch what effect his opinions have, if any, on the Bill as it makes its way through Parliament.

Read more:

1 comment;


  1. ObiterJ says:

    I fear that one detects the frustration of seeing a well reasoned report being cherry-picked by Ministers and Civil Servants.

    Also, if only one could see that the government was actually weighing up the competing public interests. They have one aim in mind only – cutting costs. Delivery of justice will be the victim.

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 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 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: