*/
The exceptional case fee funding “safety net” is not fit for purpose and fewer people have access to free legal representation than since legal aid was introduced in 1949, the Bar Council has claimed.
A Bar Council report, LASPO: One Year On, examined the effects of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 in its first year of implementation.
It highlights that whilst the Ministry of Justice estimated that 5,000-7,000 applications a year would be made for legal aid in “exceptional circumstances”, and that the majority of these would be granted, only 57 of just 1,519 applications for exceptional funding made between April 2013 and March 2014 were successful. Of the 57 granted, 42 were for inquests, only eight for family law and four for immigration cases. “Individuals dealing with life-changing legal issues are denied fair access to justice if they cannot afford it,” said Nicholas Lavender QC, Chairman of the Bar Council. “A rise in self-representation is clogging the courts and creating additional costs to the tax payer, free frontline legal advisers are creaking under the strain, pro bono lawyers cannot cope with the demand, and the safety net the Government created for providing legal aid in ‘exceptional cases’ is not fit for purpose,” he added.
The Bar Council called on the Government to change the criteria for funding cases to include cases of “significant wider public interest” and of “overwhelming importance to the client” and to provide funding for initial specialist legal advice and assistance.
The Justice Select Committee’s LASPO Inquiry on 2 September, meanwhile, heard further evidence on the plight of litigants in person in the family justice system. David Emmerson, a district judge, family law partner and mediator, argued that the exceptional fee funding process was unfair, particularly for the most vulnerable. “They’re setting the bar too high… the form itself is almost 30 pages long and you need a doctorate in law to complete it… [in] informal discussions… the Legal Aid Agency [has] almost agreed that if a litigant in person is able to complete that form, they’re almost able to show that they can represent themselves… it’s self-defeating,” he said.
Family Law Bar Association Chair Susan Jacklin QC told the Committee that litigants in person go to court “without the benefit of having had any advice whatsoever... they don’t understand what the effective issues are, they don’t understand what the necessary evidence is and so judges have to spend far too long trying to understand what the case is about”. This puts the judge “in the position of being adviser... and that really does dilute the justice process…[and] adds to the time in court,” she added. Many young barristers representing clients in court had reported to the FLBA that they felt the outcome was not fair for the non-represented parent. “They were very conscious of the fact that they were able to put forward their own client’s case in a very focused and effective way and no matter how good the judge is, especially with a long list, he will be beguiled by the best argument and the most focused case,” she said.
It highlights that whilst the Ministry of Justice estimated that 5,000-7,000 applications a year would be made for legal aid in “exceptional circumstances”, and that the majority of these would be granted, only 57 of just 1,519 applications for exceptional funding made between April 2013 and March 2014 were successful. Of the 57 granted, 42 were for inquests, only eight for family law and four for immigration cases. “Individuals dealing with life-changing legal issues are denied fair access to justice if they cannot afford it,” said Nicholas Lavender QC, Chairman of the Bar Council. “A rise in self-representation is clogging the courts and creating additional costs to the tax payer, free frontline legal advisers are creaking under the strain, pro bono lawyers cannot cope with the demand, and the safety net the Government created for providing legal aid in ‘exceptional cases’ is not fit for purpose,” he added.
The Bar Council called on the Government to change the criteria for funding cases to include cases of “significant wider public interest” and of “overwhelming importance to the client” and to provide funding for initial specialist legal advice and assistance.
The Justice Select Committee’s LASPO Inquiry on 2 September, meanwhile, heard further evidence on the plight of litigants in person in the family justice system. David Emmerson, a district judge, family law partner and mediator, argued that the exceptional fee funding process was unfair, particularly for the most vulnerable. “They’re setting the bar too high… the form itself is almost 30 pages long and you need a doctorate in law to complete it… [in] informal discussions… the Legal Aid Agency [has] almost agreed that if a litigant in person is able to complete that form, they’re almost able to show that they can represent themselves… it’s self-defeating,” he said.
Family Law Bar Association Chair Susan Jacklin QC told the Committee that litigants in person go to court “without the benefit of having had any advice whatsoever... they don’t understand what the effective issues are, they don’t understand what the necessary evidence is and so judges have to spend far too long trying to understand what the case is about”. This puts the judge “in the position of being adviser... and that really does dilute the justice process…[and] adds to the time in court,” she added. Many young barristers representing clients in court had reported to the FLBA that they felt the outcome was not fair for the non-represented parent. “They were very conscious of the fact that they were able to put forward their own client’s case in a very focused and effective way and no matter how good the judge is, especially with a long list, he will be beguiled by the best argument and the most focused case,” she said.
The exceptional case fee funding “safety net” is not fit for purpose and fewer people have access to free legal representation than since legal aid was introduced in 1949, the Bar Council has claimed.
A Bar Council report, LASPO: One Year On, examined the effects of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 in its first year of implementation.
The Chair of the Bar sets out how the new government can restore the justice system
In the first of a new series, Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth considers the fundamental need for financial protection
Unlocking your aged debt to fund your tax in one easy step. By Philip N Bristow
Possibly, but many barristers are glad he did…
Mental health charity Mind BWW has received a £500 donation from drug, alcohol and DNA testing laboratory, AlphaBiolabs as part of its Giving Back campaign
The Institute of Neurotechnology & Law is thrilled to announce its inaugural essay competition
How to navigate open source evidence in an era of deepfakes. By Professor Yvonne McDermott Rees and Professor Alexa Koenig
Brie Stevens-Hoare KC and Lyndsey de Mestre KC take a look at the difficulties women encounter during the menopause, and offer some practical tips for individuals and chambers to make things easier
Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls and Head of Civil Justice since January 2021, is well known for his passion for access to justice and all things digital. Perhaps less widely known is the driven personality and wanderlust that lies behind this, as Anthony Inglese CB discovers
The Chair of the Bar sets out how the new government can restore the justice system
No-one should have to live in sub-standard accommodation, says Antony Hodari Solicitors. We are tackling the problem of bad housing with a two-pronged approach and act on behalf of tenants in both the civil and criminal courts