Report comment

HMCTS should be given the task of granting legal aid for representation. HMCTS used to for criminal legal aid matters and I see no reason why it can't be trusted to do it.
The regulations as to the scope of legal aid and the means testing of legal aid-compared to the cost of administering legal aid and the cost of unrepresetned parties and the Government's concern at an increase in legal aid spending is the real issue. A shift of emphasis to less restrictions on the grant of legal aid will result in a reduction in the cost of administering legal aid. If HMCTS and the Courts have an oversight responsibility as to on what legal aid funding is spent then auditing and assessment costs can also be reduced.
In this way citizens can access legal representation and the administration and bureaucracy can be slashed to bits.
there is no need for teh Legal Aid Agency. There is no need for the "commissioning" concept and the quality assurance concepts that are used to justify the existence of LAA or the utterly ridiculous and poorly drafted Specifications or the Mountain of paper one has to read through to explain the billing process.
If one imagines those court cases where the LAA fails to deal with applications for extra funding and this frustrates the court process or those where the LAA withdraws legal aid at the last minute wouldnt it be better if the Court/Judge could order the expenditure or refuse the same yet allow the case to proceed to conclusion without delay?
The HMCTS's CEO's offer of serious consideration of how the justice systems operate MUST include a consideration of legal aid.
The discussion must be on how each citizen can access Justice in a meaningful way.