Lords Committee warns legal aid reform threatens access to justice
Government proposals to cut £350m from the UK's annual legal aid budget threaten to hinder access to justice, according to a House of Lords Committee report issued yesterday (17 November). The House of Lords Constitution Committee report, issued days before the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill is due to enter its second reading in the Lords on Monday (21 November), presents a serious challenge to the bill.
November 18, 2011 at 10:13 AM
3 minute read
Government proposals to cut £350m from the UK's annual legal aid budget threaten to hinder access to justice, according to a House of Lords Committee report issued yesterday (17 November).
The House of Lords Constitution Committee report, issued days before the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill is due to enter its second reading in the Lords on Monday (21 November), presents a serious challenge to the bill.
The report states that the extent of the proposed cuts to legal aid – and the manner in which they are to be delivered – raises issues around constitutional principles of access to justice.
It warns of problems in a number of areas, arguing that the bill should be strengthened to improve access to justice. It proposes changing the wording to read that "the Lord Chancellor must secure that legal aid is made available in order to ensure effective access to justice", rather than providing legal aid "within the resources made available".
It also takes issue with the planned abolition of the Legal Services Commission, arguing that the proposed appointment of a new Director of Legal Aid Casework to determine which cases qualify for legal aid is questionable because the role may not be sufficiently independent from Government interference.
Other concerns are based around legal aid for those in police custody, with the proposed bill allowing for means-testing of advice upon arrest. The committee believes this should be amended following a Supreme Court statement that any individual in police custody should be entitled to free legal advice.
Committee chair Baroness Jay said: "It is important Members of the Lords are aware of some of the implications which may threaten the important rights of access to justice and availability of legal advice to people in police custody."
She added: "The report will allow members to consider areas where the bill can be improved and amended in its passage through the Lords, in order to ensure that the best possible legislation emerges onto the statute book."
Commenting on the report Law Society president John Wotton said: "It is unusual for a Lords Committee to express their concerns with such startling clarity. There have been concerns that the Bill is unlikely to deliver the claimed savings but as the Constitutional Affairs Committee makes clear, access to justice is a priceless constitutional right. The Government should take this report to heart and work with stakeholders to improve the Bill so that it does not jeopardise access to justice for all but the most wealthy."
Labour shadow justice minister Lord Willy Bach said: "The Constitution Committee of the House of Lords is highly respected both in the House of Lords and outside. The Government must listen to the Committee's serious criticism of many of their proposals particularly when they affect access to justice. Along with peers from all sides including the crossbenches we will continue to fight these proposals that remove access to justice for fellow citizens who need legal advice."
Young Barristers Committee chair Nichola Higgins added: "[We] hope that this report will encourage a period of mature reflection and proper scrutiny of part one of the Bill which threatens to impede access to justice and raise, rather than reduce, costs."
- Click here for Legal Week analysis on the legal aid reform
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSingapore Litigators Shift Competitive Landscape as Another Senior Duo Sets Up Own Shop
US Judge Allows $8M Unpaid Legal Fees Lawsuit Against Sierra Leone to Proceed
2 minute readLondon Trial Against BHP Alleges ‘Red Flags’ Leading up to Brazil Mining Disaster Were Ignored
Trending Stories
- 1New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 2No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 3Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 4Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
- 5Lawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250