MoJ concession on immigration domestic violence cases
Lawyers have welcomed the justice minister’s concession to put some immigration domestic violence cases back within the scope of legal aid.
Jonathan Djanogly told the public bill committee that the government would table an amendment to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill to enable claimants with cases under the immigration domestic violence rule to receive legal aid.
These cases relate to situations where a foreigner marries a British national and must serve a probationary period in this country before they can apply for settlement.
If the marriage breaks down before the probationary period expires, the non-British spouse looses their right to stay in the UK.
However, if there is domestic violence, the immigration rules entitle the victim to leave the abuser and apply to stay in the UK.
The government’s cost-saving bill proposes removing legal aid for all non-detention immigration cases, including cases brought under the domestic violence rule.
Djanogly said the domestic violence rule had been considered during the consultation, and the government decided ‘on balance’ that although applicants in such cases were vulnerable, it did not think legal aid was required because the applications were paper-based and did not require legal assistance funded by legal aid.
But he said: ‘After further consideration, however, we accept that such cases are unusual.’
Djanogly said: ‘There is a real risk that without legal aid people will stay trapped in abusive relationships out of fear of jeopardising their immigration status.’
‘The type of trauma that they might have suffered will often make it difficult to cope with such applications. We also appreciate that people apply under great pressure of time, and access to a properly designated immigration adviser is a factor,’ he said.
Law Society chief executive Desmond Hudson welcomed the concession, but said more was needed.
Alison Harvey, general secretary of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, said the change was ‘great progress’ and would prevent people staying with abusive partners until they qualified for settlement. But she called on the government to extend the amendment to encompass all immigration cases involving domestic violence.
Comments
yet another gift to those who
yet another gift to those who are not from the UK enjoying the perks and subsidies paid for by the tax paying population.
Tell you what-you do it, for
Tell you what-you do it, for free! Thought not.
When we have people living in
When we have people living in poverty here, old hospitals, overcrowded classrooms, all provided on the back of an inexplicably massive tax burden, at what stage will charity begin at home?
Why? - cuts in legal aid are necessary and long overdue
Doubtless this will be abused beyond belief by the economic migrants flooding into this country and those who represent "the vulnerable" for their own means. Before the champagne socialists get wound-up. Yes I am a solicitor and no I do not read the Daily Mail.
Really
If any of you actually understood what you're talking about your comments may be valid.
1. It can't be a route for economic migrants to fleece the country, a. Because it won't apply unless they have a spouse visa for which they first have to show they have enough money to live on and pay for accommodation and b. the proof needed for domestic violence applications is so robust that it can't be abused.
2. In all fairness most of the people affected are women from cultures where they do what they're told. They're here because they've been told to come here by family and husband, many don't even want to be in the UK. When they suffer domestic violence they can rarely return home because the breakdown of the marriage is seen as their fault and they face abuse or honour killings from family.
3. Those that represent these people aren't profiting massively. Legal Aid work in this area is barely profitable which is why so many law firms have turned their backs on legal aid.
4. The fact that legal aid is needed for these cases demonstrates that the Government is breaking the law. If they weren't then there would be no need for lawyers and no need for legal aid. The Government makes the law - if they don't want to abide by it then they should change it. The tax burden would be reduced if the Government followed their own rules rather than trying to please the tabloid press.
5. Whilst we're on the subject of those living in poverty in the UK and the wasting of taxpayer's money the tax bill for British citizens who can't be bothered to work (and I know this doesn't apply to everyone and there are those genuinely unable to work or find work) is far higher than the legal aid bill. Similarly
The legal aid bill is much higher for those who seek injunctions against violent partners whether British or foreign (though the majority are British) and many unemployed or low income (hence why they get legal aid) so if the arguments given above by other posters are to follow then clearly we should let these people continue to be abused or even worse because they cost the taxpayer money and in all likelihood are out of work and may have never done a day's work in their lives.
All we need to do now is to end the NHS and cut all welfare benefits and the taxpayer will be rich once more.
Thank God someone knows what
Thank God someone knows what they are talking about. nicely put!
Abusive Posts
Strongly expressed contrary arguments are perfectly acceptable.
Foul abuse is not.
Is this website moderated? If so, will the moderator take any action in relation to the abuse in the post by Anonymous at 12.00?
Hi Stephen - all users have
Hi Stephen - all users have the chance to remove comments by using the 'report abuse' button and the Gazette can also remove them if we think they're abusive (you got there first on this one). John