Butler-Sloss condemns advice cuts

Butler-Sloss
Wednesday 30 January 2013 by Catherine Baksi

Removing funding for a service that helps litigants in person on the day wide-ranging legal aid cuts take effect will create ‘absolute disarray’ in the courts, a former head of the family division has warned.

The Citizens Advice Bureau at the Royal Courts of Justice assists litigants in person at the High Court, Court of Appeal and Principle Registry. The money it gets to fund the service will end on 1 April, following the Legal Services Commission’s decision to axe Community Legal Service grants.

The Advice Services Alliance and Law Centres Network will also lose funding, together saving the government £655,317.

On the same day as the grants end, thousands of people will be removed from legal aid eligibility as the cuts in the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act come into effect. This is expected to vastly increase the number of litigants in person.

Lady Butler-Sloss (pictured) told the House of Lords yesterday that the RJC CAB did work of ‘significance and importance’.

‘Having been a judge in the court for many years, I had personal experience of the advantages of the bureau looking after unrepresented families in my court,’ she said. She asked if Lord McNally, the legal aid minister, understood that taking away its core funding at this time ‘is going to leave the public and the courts in absolute disarray’.

Labour’s former legal aid minister Lord Bach asked McNally why a decision had been taken that would put at risk ‘three highly respected and proven organisations’ that have a ‘superb record’ of helping disadvantaged people get access to justice.

He questioned the government’s motives saying: ‘Is it just coincidence that these changes to legal aid are coming at precisely the same time as radical reform of the welfare system is about to begin?

‘Or is it, as seems much more likely to some of us, deliberate government policy to link these two things so that if mistakes are made as a result of welfare reform – as they will be – there will cease to be any effective legal remedy for many people.’

Defending the cut, McNally said the original three-year contracts to the groups had been extended twice, but that the grants were not used to provide direct advice to people who qualify for legal aid and that could no longer be afforded.

With a limited budget, he said ‘hard decisions’ had to be made and funding limited to those giving ‘sharp-end’ legal aid advice. ‘Quite simply, the days when large amounts of government funds were available for these bodies are over and we all have to face that fact,’ he said.

Comments

Take careful aim at foot. Fire !

This latest breathtakingly disgusting news has at least provoked an unequivocal reaction from a member of the judiciary as to its likely effect. Apparently to save funds equivalent to the price of a single semi-detached house in an average North London suburb, the Governent wishes to risk "disarray"in the Courts that will cost it far more in all sorts of ways , not least in calling out police to deal with brawling LiPs.
The Government is intent on shooting itself in the foot ; fine by me, its just about the only entity I wish to see on its knees as a result.

What goes around comes around

When the Court system grinds to a halt, the Government and in particular our unqualified Lord Chancellor won't be able to say that they weren't told. And who better to tell them than Lady Butler-Sloss?? If we can't afford to support the RJC CAB, how can we afford yet another irrelevant foreign war?

Charity starts at home, no???

What can you say? Who would

What can you say? Who would consider this a sensible move?

Access to Justice is become the preserve of the wealthy.

Investing heavily in ADR and making court closures whilst issuing practice directions regarding litigants in person/McKenzie friends etc will not reduce the burdens on courts nor assist those who deserve and need help.

It won't do much for those lawyers who remain in practice having to fend off pleas of help and cristisms for not offering their services free.

Nor will it help stay off angry comments by their own clients at the escalating fees of dealing with litigants in person which no doubt will lead them to the path of the LeO who will charge them for the pleasure!

Who wants to be a DJ?

No thanks, LIP day in, day out. I'd rather work three days in the office without a break.

To think that they are actively saying more people should apply.

Tackling oppression

If legal options are removed, then people are more likely to choose organised violence as a response to government oppression.

Butler sloss

Instead of complaining about govt cuts why doesn't she set up and fund her own advice centre.

she is more wealthy now than some of the parents to whom she dispensed "justice" as el Presidente of the Family Division?

I'm sure some would wlecome her advice?

No parent wins in the family

No parent wins in the family courts against the local authority, so why pay through legal aid for legal representation when it is a complete waste of public money, if I am wrong, print the statistics