*/
The Government has failed to target legal aid to those who need it most, a Justice Committee inquiry into the impact of the civil legal aid reforms has concluded.
The final report of the cross-party committee of MPs, Impact of changes to civil legal aid under Part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, found that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) had failed to achieve three out of its four stated objectives for the reforms.
Whilst the Government had achieved its aim of substantially reducing the civil legal aid budget, access to justice had been harmed, unnecessary litigation at public expense had not been discouraged, and better value for the taxpayer not shown.
Announcing the conclusions, Committee Chair, Sir Alan Beith MP, acknowledged that making £2bn of savings from a budget of £9.8bn was clearly a “challenging target”.
“But this has limited access to justice for some of those who need legal aid the most and in some instances has failed to prevent cases becoming more serious and creating further claims on the legal aid budget.
“Many of the problems which we have identified could have been avoided with better research, a better evidence base to work from, and better public information about the reforms.
“It is vitally important that the MoJ works to remedy this from now on,” he warned.
The report identified a “significant underspend” in the civil legal aid budget since the reforms and “wrongful refusal of exceptional case funding applications [that] may have resulted in miscarriages of justice”.
“All agencies involved must closely examine their actions and take immediate steps to ensure the exceptional cases funding scheme is the robust safety net envisaged by Parliament,” it concluded.
Responding to the report, Alistair MacDonald QC, Chairman of the Bar said that the findings “came as no surprise” to any professional giving legal advice to vulnerable people; and that recent reports by the Public Accounts Committee and National Audit Office had come to much the same conclusions. “We need a commitment from all parties to approach justice differently,” he said.
Whilst the Government had achieved its aim of substantially reducing the civil legal aid budget, access to justice had been harmed, unnecessary litigation at public expense had not been discouraged, and better value for the taxpayer not shown.
Announcing the conclusions, Committee Chair, Sir Alan Beith MP, acknowledged that making £2bn of savings from a budget of £9.8bn was clearly a “challenging target”.
“But this has limited access to justice for some of those who need legal aid the most and in some instances has failed to prevent cases becoming more serious and creating further claims on the legal aid budget.
“Many of the problems which we have identified could have been avoided with better research, a better evidence base to work from, and better public information about the reforms.
“It is vitally important that the MoJ works to remedy this from now on,” he warned.
The report identified a “significant underspend” in the civil legal aid budget since the reforms and “wrongful refusal of exceptional case funding applications [that] may have resulted in miscarriages of justice”.
“All agencies involved must closely examine their actions and take immediate steps to ensure the exceptional cases funding scheme is the robust safety net envisaged by Parliament,” it concluded.
Responding to the report, Alistair MacDonald QC, Chairman of the Bar said that the findings “came as no surprise” to any professional giving legal advice to vulnerable people; and that recent reports by the Public Accounts Committee and National Audit Office had come to much the same conclusions. “We need a commitment from all parties to approach justice differently,” he said.
The Government has failed to target legal aid to those who need it most, a Justice Committee inquiry into the impact of the civil legal aid reforms has concluded.
The final report of the cross-party committee of MPs, Impact of changes to civil legal aid under Part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, found that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) had failed to achieve three out of its four stated objectives for the reforms.
Chair of the Bar finds common ground on legal services between our two jurisdictions, plus an update on jury trials
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
An interview with Rob Wagg, CEO of New Park Court Chambers
With at least 31 reports of AI hallucinations in UK legal cases – over 800 worldwide – and judges using AI to assist in judicial decision-making, the risks and benefits are impossible to ignore. Matthew Lee examines how different jurisdictions are responding
What has changed, and why? Paul Secher unpacks the new standards aligning the recruiting, training and appraising of judges – the first major change to the system for ten years
The deprivation of liberty is the most significant power the state can exercise. Drawing on frontline experience, Chris Henley KC explains why replacing trial by jury with judge-only trials risks undermining justice
Ever wondered what a pupillage is like at the CPS? This Q and A provides an insight into the training, experience and next steps
The appointments of 96 new King’s Counsel (also known as silk) are announced today