header-logo header-logo

08 September 2020
Issue: 7901 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Legal aid focus , Legal services
printer mail-detail

Legal aid under pressure

MPs are holding an inquiry into the future of legal aid, in light of difficulties getting legal aid assistance in some areas as well as lawyers’ concerns about fees, reduced work during the COVID-19 outbreak and other pressures

The Justice Committee issued a call for evidence this week and is keen to hear from practitioners and clients about their experience. The Committee, chaired by Sir Bob Neill QC MP, aims to look ahead to the next decade of legal aid, and to identify challenges facing clients and providers and how they might be tackled. It is especially keen to hear about the sustainability of the legal aid market, the impact of COVID-19 and the increasing reliance on digital technology to deliver advice and representation.

The inquiry will also look at how LASPO (the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012) has affected access to justice. The Committee previously looked at civil legal aid following LASPO, in 2014, highlighting issues such as the increase in litigants in person and low take-up of the exceptional cases funding scheme. It looked into criminal legal aid in 2018,

The government’s own post-implementation review of LASPO, published in February 2019, concluded that LASPO had been ‘partially successful’ at meeting its four objectives of saving money, targeting legal aid at those who need it most, discouraging unnecessary litigation and delivering better value for money.

Law Society president Simon Davis said there were ‘swathes of the country with no or vanishingly little legal aid provision for issues such as housing and community care, as well as a dwindling number of criminal law solicitors, because the system for so long has been starved of funding.

‘Growing numbers of people are navigating the justice system unrepresented―with no legal advice to help them enforce their rights.’

Submit responses by 5pm on 19 October via: bit.ly/338AOxQ.

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