header-logo header-logo

29 May 2024
Issue: 8073 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus , Profession
printer mail-detail

Scrutiny committee gives thumbs down on legal aid

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has lamented the lack of data-gathering and ‘curiosity’ on the part of ministry officials

Its report ‘Value for money from legal aid’, published last week, noted that while the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is aware of cases where people did not take legal advice as a result of long waits for duty solicitors at police stations, it has no data on how frequently people request a duty solicitor but do not get one.

Similarly, PAC’s report expresses concern at the MoJ’s lack of understanding of the impact of legal aid deserts on vulnerable groups—for example, those with a disability or with English as a second language.

Overall, it found the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 reduced direct spending on legal aid, with a £728m (28%) real-terms reduction in 2022–23 compared with 2012–13. However, it noted the government has ‘failed to improve their understanding of where costs may have shifted to other areas of the justice system or wider government’. For example, MoJ and HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) acknowledges that removing early legal advice for immigration and family issues may create additional costs elsewhere, but has not tried to identify or address these.

The report states: ‘HMCTS’s failure to improve the data it collects on the impacts of increasing numbers of people representing themselves (litigants-in-person) on courts, which have been under immense pressure in recent years, is particularly disappointing.’

PAC highlighted the proportion of people eligible for legal aid is reducing each year as ministers dither over reviews of the threshold. It also expressed concern about the future sustainability of the legal aid market, and urged the MoJ to set out how it plans to work with providers to keep legal aid profitable and what mechanisms it will put in place to routinely review sustainability.

Issue: 8073 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus , Profession
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