*/
The exceptional case fee funding “safety net” is not fit for purpose and fewer people have access to free legal representation than since legal aid was introduced in 1949, the Bar Council has claimed.
A Bar Council report, LASPO: One Year On, examined the effects of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 in its first year of implementation.
It highlights that whilst the Ministry of Justice estimated that 5,000-7,000 applications a year would be made for legal aid in “exceptional circumstances”, and that the majority of these would be granted, only 57 of just 1,519 applications for exceptional funding made between April 2013 and March 2014 were successful. Of the 57 granted, 42 were for inquests, only eight for family law and four for immigration cases. “Individuals dealing with life-changing legal issues are denied fair access to justice if they cannot afford it,” said Nicholas Lavender QC, Chairman of the Bar Council. “A rise in self-representation is clogging the courts and creating additional costs to the tax payer, free frontline legal advisers are creaking under the strain, pro bono lawyers cannot cope with the demand, and the safety net the Government created for providing legal aid in ‘exceptional cases’ is not fit for purpose,” he added.
The Bar Council called on the Government to change the criteria for funding cases to include cases of “significant wider public interest” and of “overwhelming importance to the client” and to provide funding for initial specialist legal advice and assistance.
The Justice Select Committee’s LASPO Inquiry on 2 September, meanwhile, heard further evidence on the plight of litigants in person in the family justice system. David Emmerson, a district judge, family law partner and mediator, argued that the exceptional fee funding process was unfair, particularly for the most vulnerable. “They’re setting the bar too high… the form itself is almost 30 pages long and you need a doctorate in law to complete it… [in] informal discussions… the Legal Aid Agency [has] almost agreed that if a litigant in person is able to complete that form, they’re almost able to show that they can represent themselves… it’s self-defeating,” he said.
Family Law Bar Association Chair Susan Jacklin QC told the Committee that litigants in person go to court “without the benefit of having had any advice whatsoever... they don’t understand what the effective issues are, they don’t understand what the necessary evidence is and so judges have to spend far too long trying to understand what the case is about”. This puts the judge “in the position of being adviser... and that really does dilute the justice process…[and] adds to the time in court,” she added. Many young barristers representing clients in court had reported to the FLBA that they felt the outcome was not fair for the non-represented parent. “They were very conscious of the fact that they were able to put forward their own client’s case in a very focused and effective way and no matter how good the judge is, especially with a long list, he will be beguiled by the best argument and the most focused case,” she said.
It highlights that whilst the Ministry of Justice estimated that 5,000-7,000 applications a year would be made for legal aid in “exceptional circumstances”, and that the majority of these would be granted, only 57 of just 1,519 applications for exceptional funding made between April 2013 and March 2014 were successful. Of the 57 granted, 42 were for inquests, only eight for family law and four for immigration cases. “Individuals dealing with life-changing legal issues are denied fair access to justice if they cannot afford it,” said Nicholas Lavender QC, Chairman of the Bar Council. “A rise in self-representation is clogging the courts and creating additional costs to the tax payer, free frontline legal advisers are creaking under the strain, pro bono lawyers cannot cope with the demand, and the safety net the Government created for providing legal aid in ‘exceptional cases’ is not fit for purpose,” he added.
The Bar Council called on the Government to change the criteria for funding cases to include cases of “significant wider public interest” and of “overwhelming importance to the client” and to provide funding for initial specialist legal advice and assistance.
The Justice Select Committee’s LASPO Inquiry on 2 September, meanwhile, heard further evidence on the plight of litigants in person in the family justice system. David Emmerson, a district judge, family law partner and mediator, argued that the exceptional fee funding process was unfair, particularly for the most vulnerable. “They’re setting the bar too high… the form itself is almost 30 pages long and you need a doctorate in law to complete it… [in] informal discussions… the Legal Aid Agency [has] almost agreed that if a litigant in person is able to complete that form, they’re almost able to show that they can represent themselves… it’s self-defeating,” he said.
Family Law Bar Association Chair Susan Jacklin QC told the Committee that litigants in person go to court “without the benefit of having had any advice whatsoever... they don’t understand what the effective issues are, they don’t understand what the necessary evidence is and so judges have to spend far too long trying to understand what the case is about”. This puts the judge “in the position of being adviser... and that really does dilute the justice process…[and] adds to the time in court,” she added. Many young barristers representing clients in court had reported to the FLBA that they felt the outcome was not fair for the non-represented parent. “They were very conscious of the fact that they were able to put forward their own client’s case in a very focused and effective way and no matter how good the judge is, especially with a long list, he will be beguiled by the best argument and the most focused case,” she said.
The exceptional case fee funding “safety net” is not fit for purpose and fewer people have access to free legal representation than since legal aid was introduced in 1949, the Bar Council has claimed.
A Bar Council report, LASPO: One Year On, examined the effects of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 in its first year of implementation.
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
Giovanni D’Avola explores the issue of over-citation of unreported cases and the ‘added value’ elements of a law report
Louise Crush explores the key points and opportunities for tax efficiency
Westgate Wealth Management Ltd is a Partner Practice of FTSE 100 company St. James’s Place – one of the top UK Wealth Management firms. We offer a holistic service of distinct quality, integrity, and excellence with the aim to build a professional and valuable relationship with our clients, helping to provide them with security now, prosperity in the future and the highest standard of service in all of our dealings.
Is now the time to review your financial position, having reached a career milestone? asks Louise Crush
If you were to host a dinner party with 10 guests, and you asked them to explain what financial planning is and how it differs to financial advice, you’d receive 10 different answers. The variety of answers highlights the ongoing need to clarify and promote the value of financial planning.
Most of us like to think we would risk our career in order to meet our ethical obligations, so why have so many lawyers failed to hold the line? asks Flora Page
If your current practice environment is bringing you down, seek a new one. However daunting the change, it will be worth it, says Anon Barrister
Creating advocacy opportunities for juniors is now the expectation but not always easy to put into effect. Tom Mitcheson KC distils developing best practice from the Patents Court initiative already bearing fruit
National courts are now running the bulk of the world’s war crimes cases and corporate prosecutions are part of this growing trend, reports Chris Stephen
Let’s hear it for the assessors, says Dame Anne Rafferty of the KC Selection Panel. And to make silk assessors’ lives a little easier when applicants come calling in May, Dame Anne fields some commonly asked questions