MoJ review on separate budgets for criminal and civil legal aid
The Ministry of Justice has announced a review of the way the £2bn legal aid budget is delivered which could see separate civil and criminal funds run by different bodies.
The review came as legal aid lawyers warned that firms providing social welfare work are at risk of collapse because of the ‘artificial’ way work is being distributed by the Legal Services Commission.
Legal aid minister Lord Bach has appointed Sir Ian Magee, a former permanent secretary at the Department for Constitutional Affairs, to look at ways of optimising value for money in the way legal aid is administered.
Bach said: ‘The time is right to review the channels through which legal aid is delivered. It’s 10 years since the LSC was established and there has been considerable change in the type of legal aid and services people want.’
He told the Gazette he was ‘ruling nothing out and nothing in’. However, he said he would be surprised if the LSC ceased to exist, but said it could work alongside another body, with one administering the criminal budget, and the other the civil budget. The two budgets could be ringfenced.
An LSC spokesman said it would be working closely with Sir Ian to inform his review. Law Society president Robert Heslett said the legal aid system needed to be ‘reviewed urgently’. He added that the Society is conducting a review of access to justice, and it would be engaging with Magee’s review.
Meanwhile, Chancery Lane has warned that the LSC’s policy of capping the number of new social welfare cases or ‘matter starts’ that a firm can take on could cause some firms to collapse.
Richard Miller, Law Society head of legal aid, said he had been receiving calls from solicitors who had already exceeded their annual allocation of new social welfare matter starts, particularly in the Midlands.
Firms will not receive their next allocation until the new civil contract next October. Miller said firms could be forced to lay off staff or close departments and will be experiencing major cashflow problems ‘that could be fatal’.
‘The overall effect will damage the supply of social welfare advice to vulnerable clients, to which Lord Bach has shown so much commitment,’ he said.
Nicola Mackintosh of legal aid firm Mackintosh Duncan questioned why the LSC was ‘artificially limiting the number of clients who can get access to justice’ by allocating firms only a set number of new cases.
The LSC spokesman said it would look to reallocate any surplus matter starts from firms not likely to use all of theirs, but its budget was reaching its limit and it could not expand the overall number of cases.
Comments
Legal Aid for Family Court
Legal Aid for Family Court cases are unjustifiable
Family Court Cases are brought by the state against Parents, then allow Parents Legal Aid to
represent these parents against the state to disprove the allegations. Who wins? Involved Teachers, Guardians, Social Services,Medical,Phscychologists, which Judge would stand against
these trustworthy, pillar of Society professions, Stop giving parents false hope just take the
children as goes on with or without legal and save the Tax Payer money.
LSC
Save the LSC!!...and Whales!!
Until there is a full review of the Justice systems together with a review of how they are funded and a review of how parties to the proceedings are assisted, the Government will continue to make a mess of reform of Justice and of Legal Aid.
No Win No Fee Instead of
No Win No Fee
Instead of Legal Aid for Family Law Court Cases
See how many takers
To Michael Robinson
Most of the MPs have legal backgrounds
Underfunding leads to injustice
My primary concern with these proposals is the addition costs involved in operating two distinct legal aid bodies. Are the government going to make these costs come out of the existing £2bn budget? If so, the stretch on resources is going to get even worse.
The addition strain on publically funded legal services created by the credit crunch, along with ever expanding criminal justice reforms (leading to a greater and greater number of offences and offenders) has led to significantly less access to justice. One solution that no LSC or government official has yet apparently contemplated is increasing the funding available in the system. Efficiency savings will only take us so far.
As for family cuts, representation is essential to enable both parties to be on an even playing field. The council will certainly still send lawyers to represent its cases. Denying families the same privilege will break up families and leave councils and decision-makers without a check on their judgement.
Judging the people that bring such cases on how deserving they are meant to be, or what they're alleged to have to have done , misses the point of the justice system - to determine the truth of the matter, often in very trying circumstances. Reducing access generally will increase injustice generally.
An "urgent review" is required but it must consider not only the number of matter starts and how many people are represented as a statistic, but also the quality of that advice and representation.
To James Walters I as a
To James Walters
I as a Grandparent having had to represent as a Mckenzie Friend in a Family Law Case wish your
thoughts were correct on a Family having to have a chance on a level playing field. This is not so
in these cases. I have the full file given to me by the QC in the case and also all the Judgements.
The simplest of Rules from the beginning were not adhered to ie Childs name on Applications
Surname only in Capitals, The applications went from one court (magistrates) then throughout the
county court until the childs name was completely false, as the name was false and the evidence
was based on Scans of a child that did not exist obviously this evidence was false. The whole case
was based on the parents love and devotion to their child which was well documentated (but went
missing) that the case being a split case the second half was reliant on mother to confess to
these false injuries under oathe 'To get her baby back' did not happen the reports of Guardian,
Social Services, NSPCC all carried Childs birth certified name in anticipation of covering up
the false name and to get the second judge to put full care order in childs birth certified name but
this did not happen contrary to 1989 Childrens Act
Care Orders
33 Effect of Care Order
(7) While a Care Order is in force with respect to a child no person may
(a) Cause the Child to be known by a new Surname
The judge put the Full Care Order in the False Name
So what happened next the name on the Care Order was illegally changed Tipexed, Retyped
How can we prove this we appeared in the High Court of Appeal Verbal Appeal 25 July 1997
Sir your fair playing field does not exist Hence my suggestion NO WIN NO FEE
and were turned down for Appeal on 2 Judgements one went missing for 12 yrs we were also
sent High Court of Appeal Certificate 3370 Stated on this is the False name even though on
Application we put childs birth registered name