*/
A Conservative government will not repeal the Human Rights Act during the Brexit process and will keep the UK signed up the European Convention on Human Rights for the next Parliament.
The party’s 88-page manifesto contained other surprises, including plans to incorporate the Serious Fraud Office into the National Crime Agency and repeal s 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2014, which would have forced newspapers to pay the costs of libel and privacy actions even if they won. The Tories will not proceed with part two of the Leveson Inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press.
It promises tougher regulation of tax advisory firms, strengthened legal services regulation and a crackdown on ‘exaggerated and fraudulent’ whiplash claims.
An Independent Public Advocate will act for bereaved families in inquests and legal aid will be restricted for ‘unscrupulous law firms that issue vexatious legal claims against the armed forces’.
In their manifestos Labour and the Liberal Democrats promised to review the legal aid cuts. A Labour government would reinstate some of the 2013 legal aid cuts, including for private family law, cap court fees and open an inquiry into the 1984 ‘Battle Orgeave’ clash between miners and the police. It also pledged to introduce no-fault divorce.
The Liberal Democrats promised an ‘urgent and comprehensive review’ of the 2013 legal aid cuts, to reverse court fees and protect judicial review. It pledged to ‘secure further funding for criminal legal aid from sources other than the taxpayer, including insurance for company directors, and changes to restraint orders’.
The Bar Council and Law Society also published manifestos. In its Manifesto for Justice, the Bar Council criticised Lord Chancellor, Liz Truss for failing to ‘stand up for the judges’ when they were attacked in the press over the Brexit ruling (see 'Value of justice', Counsel, June 2017).
It called on the next government to ‘demonstrate its commitment to uphold the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law’ and to reverse some of the legal aid cuts, highlighting in particular the need to fund representation in housing, immigration and welfare cases.
In its wish-list, the Law Society’s Our vision for law and justice called for the reinstatement of legal aid, particularly in housing and family case, and the scrapping of employment fees, but it was silent on the role of the Lord Chancellor.
A Conservative government will not repeal the Human Rights Act during the Brexit process and will keep the UK signed up the European Convention on Human Rights for the next Parliament.
The party’s 88-page manifesto contained other surprises, including plans to incorporate the Serious Fraud Office into the National Crime Agency and repeal s 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2014, which would have forced newspapers to pay the costs of libel and privacy actions even if they won. The Tories will not proceed with part two of the Leveson Inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press.
It promises tougher regulation of tax advisory firms, strengthened legal services regulation and a crackdown on ‘exaggerated and fraudulent’ whiplash claims.
An Independent Public Advocate will act for bereaved families in inquests and legal aid will be restricted for ‘unscrupulous law firms that issue vexatious legal claims against the armed forces’.
In their manifestos Labour and the Liberal Democrats promised to review the legal aid cuts. A Labour government would reinstate some of the 2013 legal aid cuts, including for private family law, cap court fees and open an inquiry into the 1984 ‘Battle Orgeave’ clash between miners and the police. It also pledged to introduce no-fault divorce.
The Liberal Democrats promised an ‘urgent and comprehensive review’ of the 2013 legal aid cuts, to reverse court fees and protect judicial review. It pledged to ‘secure further funding for criminal legal aid from sources other than the taxpayer, including insurance for company directors, and changes to restraint orders’.
The Bar Council and Law Society also published manifestos. In its Manifesto for Justice, the Bar Council criticised Lord Chancellor, Liz Truss for failing to ‘stand up for the judges’ when they were attacked in the press over the Brexit ruling (see 'Value of justice', Counsel, June 2017).
It called on the next government to ‘demonstrate its commitment to uphold the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law’ and to reverse some of the legal aid cuts, highlighting in particular the need to fund representation in housing, immigration and welfare cases.
In its wish-list, the Law Society’s Our vision for law and justice called for the reinstatement of legal aid, particularly in housing and family case, and the scrapping of employment fees, but it was silent on the role of the Lord Chancellor.
Chair of the Bar reports back
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
A £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs has been made to the leading UK charity tackling international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, outlines the drug and alcohol testing options available for family law professionals, and how a new, free guide can help identify the most appropriate testing method for each specific case
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the latest ONS data on drug misuse and its implications for toxicology testing in family law cases
A career shaped by advocacy beyond her practice, and the realities of living with an invisible disability – Dr Natasha Shotunde, Black Barristers’ Network Co-Founder and its Chair for seven years, reflects on a decade at the Bar
The odds of success are as unforgiving as ever, but ambition clearly isn’t in short supply. David Wurtzel’s annual deep‑dive into the competition cohort shows who’s entering, who’s thriving and the trends that will define the next wave
Where to start and where to find help? Monisha Shah, Chair of the King’s Counsel Selection Panel, provides an overview of the silk selection process, debunking some myths along the way
Do chatbot providers owe a duty of care for negligent misstatements? Jasper Wong suggests that the principles applicable to humans should apply equally to machines
There is no typical day in the life as a Supreme Court judicial assistant, says Josephine Gillingwater, and that’s what makes the role so enjoyably diverse
