Legal aid cuts to hit hardest to reach
There have being serious concerns raised about the proposed £350 million pounds of cuts to the legal aid budget and how it will affect the most disadvantaged.
On 21st June 2011, the Law Society reported that the government’s proposed Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, due to have its second reading 29th June 2011, ‘was the single biggest attack on access to justice since the legal aid system was introduced.’
The Law Society cites that the reforms will deny justice to those unable to afford it, especially in cases of family breakdown, medical negligence, immigration, debt and welfare benefit appeals. This directly impact on those most vulnerable in society, given the cost of housing, food and energy, inflation running at 4.5%, and disposable incomes falling 2.7%.
The Law Society cited
“The sort of people who would lose out through the changes could include a baby injured because of a mistake at birth, a woman whose career’s benefit is wrongly stopped and a man whose former partner will not let him see his children.”
In a separate criticism, the only woman member of the Supreme Court and Family Law Specialist Baroness Hale voiced concern that legal aid will be reserved in future for claims where life or liberty is at stake, where there is risk of serious physical harm, homelessness or children being taken into care. This would leave those most at risk to rely on legal help on no win no fee basis and if unsuccessful not having the means to address a wrong.
Finally, in the Guardian Lord Macdonald, former director of public prosecutions, has expressed ‘alarm’ at the Bill ending the automatic right under the Police & Criminal Evidence Act to have a solicitor present during questioning by the police. Lord Macdonald added that this was less about the public having protection from the police but protecting the police from the public against for example allegations of cruelty. He said:
“This is a critical part of the apparatus of protection that we have.
“The presence of a lawyer doesn’t just protect the defendant from police, it protects the police from a defendant making up allegations about what happened, for instance during the course of an interrogation. I think the government should be very cautious about interfering in any way with the absolute right to representation in police stations. It’s there for a very good reason. When we didn’t have it, we saw the consequences.”
But equally any changes to the requirements of access to a solicitor based on means testing will disadvantage the poor. A point that has been raised by various legal charities.
Lord Macdonald also repeated a growing concern that appears to be commented on increasingly that is the government has not allowed the Bill enough time for proper scrutiny in the commons.
Kuki Taylor
Project Support Officer
Read more:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2010-2012/0205/cbill_2010-20120205_en_1.htm
