header-logo header-logo

29 June 2017
Issue: 7752 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus , Legal services
printer mail-detail

Law Society reviews four years of LASPO

The Law Society has published a devastating critique of LASPO (Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012), which slashed civil and family legal aid.

In a report published this week, Access denied? LASPO four years on, the Law Society concludes that the legislation, which came into force in April 2013, has denied access to justice to society’s most vulnerable, hit the public purse and damaged the foundation of the justice system.

The report focuses on the impact of the cuts on the ability of citizens to defend and enforce their legal rights. It suggests LASPO increased pressure not just on the courts but on wider public services as legal problems escalated in the absence of legal aid for early advice. LASPO aimed to cut legal aid spending by £450m.

Law Society president Robert Bourns said hundreds of thousands of people eligible for legal aid one day became ineligible the very next, but it was a ‘false economy’.

‘Access to justice should be treated as an essential public service—equal to healthcare or education,’ he said. ‘Early legal advice can help people sort out their problems and prevent them from having to rely on welfare support or involve the courts. This makes a real difference to them but also saves taxpayers money.

‘Failure to get early expert legal advice can result in problems escalating dramatically, when they could have been nipped in the bud. The cuts have led to many people facing court unrepresented, in cases where lawyers would have resolved the issues without involving the court, via mediation or negotiation.’

Bourns referred to reports that tenants of Grenfell Tower were unable to access legal aid to challenge safety concerns about the building. If true, he said, ‘then we may have a very stark example of what limiting legal aid can mean’.

Issue: 7752 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus , Legal services
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
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
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll