header-logo header-logo

19 September 2016
Issue: 7715 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

How to safeguard access to justice?

Can greater use of technology, pro bono advice and McKenzie’s Friends ever plug the gap in civil legal aid?

A new report by legal think tank Halsbury’s Law Exchange, Can we safeguard access to justice, uses real-life examples and insight from judges and practitioners to examine the state of legal aid provision in England and Wales. It raises interesting questions regarding the future use of technology and changing business practices.

In a foreword to the report, legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg QC invites the reader to imagine a graph depicting the effect of LASPO (the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which came into force in April 2013). At the beginning of 2013, there are more than 130,000 civil legal aid cases a quarter but by the summer the number has dropped by two-thirds to about 40,000 cases a quarter.

This saves the government money—civil legal aid spending drops 20% from £1,063m to £852m—but leaves people without legal representation, increases the numbers of litigants in person, puts pressure on the courts and reduces the number of lawyers specialising in the affected areas.

The government has responded by investing in technology, with initiatives such as the online court intended to help fill the gaps. Other innovations have helped, for example, a device developed by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer that helps law centres keep track of clients with chaotic lives.

However, the report poses difficult questions. Is a McKenzie Friend any substitute for professional legal advice? Who is left to help a woman who develops mental and physical health problems as a result of mental and physical abuse at the hands of her husband and family but is erroneously classified as not a domestic abuse victim by a system under strain? Practitioners predict a growth in digitally-assisted services and greater cross-over between law centres and grassroots charities such as food banks.

Whatever the future holds, practitioners in the field agree the path is unlikely to be smooth. The report has been published ahead of the Halsbury’s Law Exchange Debate on 22 September at One Great George Street, London, on the same topic.

Issue: 7715 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll