*/
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.
On both fronts – representing the Bar’s interests and protecting the rule of law
Kate West discusses how best to interpret a drug test report, and the common misconceptions about what can be learnt from a drug test
Ashley Hodgkinson looks at drug testing methods and some of the most common ways people try to cheat a drug test
Clerksroom Chambers has recruited Matthew Wildish from 3 Paper Buildings (3PB) to a newly created position of Director of Clerking. Matthew joined the team at Clerksroom on 1 June
... have you seen through yours? asks Julian Morgan
Opportunity for female sopranos/contraltos in secondary education, or who have recently finished secondary education but have not yet begun tertiary education. Eligibility includes children of members of the Bar
Clerksroom Chambers has recruited Matthew Wildish from 3 Paper Buildings (3PB) to a newly created position of Director of Clerking. Matthew joined the team at Clerksroom on 1 June
In this tale of hope, success really has been the best revenge! A difficult journey teaches Rehana Azib QC invaluable lessons along the way
The Chief Inspector of the CPS knows first-hand the difficulties prosecutors face but is no pushover. He talks to Anthony Inglese CB about Operation Soteria, putting victims and cooperation at the heart of criminal justice reform, and his unique and life-changing career prosecuting the crime of all crimes, genocide
Having represented many Davids against many Goliaths over a 30+year career at the publicly funded Bar, renowned silk Professor Leslie Thomas QC critically assesses what the Human Rights Act currently under challenge has done for coronial law and equality of arms
The future of robotics in surgery is likely to hinge on what it enables does the legal system yet have the tools to protect patients?Conor Dufficy and Finn Stevenson investigate