*/
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.
Now is the time to tackle inappropriate behaviour at the Bar as well as extend our reach and collaboration with organisations and individuals at home and abroad
A comparison – Dan Monaghan, Head of DWF Chambers, invites two viewpoints
And if not, why not? asks Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Head of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, discusses the many benefits of oral fluid drug testing for child welfare and protection matters
To mark International Women’s Day, Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management looks at how financial planning can help bridge the gap
Casey Randall of AlphaBiolabs answers some of the most common questions regarding relationship DNA testing for court
Maria Scotland and Niamh Wilkie report from the Bar Council’s 2024 visit to the United Arab Emirates exploring practice development opportunities for the England and Wales family Bar
Marking Neurodiversity Week 2025, an anonymous barrister shares the revelations and emotions from a mid-career diagnosis with a view to encouraging others to find out more
David Wurtzel analyses the outcome of the 2024 silk competition and how it compares with previous years, revealing some striking trends and home truths for the profession
Save for some high-flyers and those who can become commercial arbitrators, it is generally a question of all or nothing but that does not mean moving from hero to zero, says Andrew Hillier
