header-logo header-logo

08 December 2017
Issue: 7773 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Legal aid barrier for domestic violence survivors lifted

An unpopular rule that acted as a barrier to legal aid for domestic violence survivors is to be dropped, in a major victory for campaigners.

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) confirmed this week that legal aid rules affecting survivors of domestic violence will be amended as of January 2018. It will scrap a time limit on evidence that meant survivors had to show they had suffered abuse within the past five years to be granted legal aid for advice and representation in disputed family court hearings.

The MoJ will also widen the types of evidence that can be supplied to prove abuse. In future, statements from domestic violence support organisations and housing support officers can be used.

Legal advice charity Rights of Women (ROW) brought a successful judicial review in 2016 that led to the MoJ reviewing the current rules. In the hearing, ROW gave evidence that the rules meant 40% of women survivors could not meet the evidence requirements, which meant they then had to face their abusers in court by themselves.

Estelle du Boulay, director of ROW, said: ‘The previous system was so clearly unjust, leaving many genuine survivors unable to access the legal aid they were entitled to, because the evidence requirements were narrow, onerous and unrealistic.

‘We fought the government through the courts to bring in these reforms. We are particularly grateful to the many women survivors who provided testimony that enabled us to prove our case. Their voices have finally been listened to today. This is a landmark win in relation to access to justice.’

Justice Minister Dominic Raab said: ‘These changes make sure that vulnerable women and children get legal support, so their voice is properly heard in court.’

Issue: 7773 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
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