The long-awaited review of LASPO, promised by the government within three to five years of implementation, has finally been announced.
In a written statement to Parliament yesterday, the Lord Chancellor said it would be conducted by MoJ officials, with input from interested parties, and would report by the 2018 summer recess (which would take it just beyond five years since LASPO came into force in April 2013).
The statement is here, and the accompanying memorandum is here.
Lord Bach’s Access to Justice Commission has published its final report, available here. It is a detailed and thoughtful report, which should provoke further debate about the impact on access to justice – and particularly those who can’t get it – following the reforms of recent years. There is a lengthy list of recommendations, which fall into three main categories:
Sir Henry Brooke, the retired Court of Appeal judge, was one of the commissioners. Since the publication of the report he has posted a series of blogs, well worth reading, looking at some of the background to the Commission’s recommendations.
The major parties have now published their manifestos for the forthcoming general election. This is what they have to say about legal aid.
Conservative party
The Conservative manifesto says:
Labour
The Labour manifesto says:
Liberal Democrats
The Lib Dem manifesto says the party will:
UKIP and the Green Party make no mention of legal aid in their manifestos.
The new edition of the Handbook has now been published and pre-order copies are being dispatched. You can order your copy from LAG here.
This book is an invaluable companion and essential reading for all legal aid practitioners, from caseworkers to senior partners. The authors have expertly pulled together information that is not currently available in one place providing the only single volume guide to the criminal and civil legal aid scheme.
‘… admirably clear on some very tricky points. There should be at least one copy in every office where legal aid work is carried out.’ Carol Storer, director, LAPG.
‘I wish I could say “this book is never off my desk” but the truth is my copy of LAG Legal Aid Handbook always appears to be on someone else’s … Essential reading for all practitioners seeking to provide a first class service to clients in a post-LASPO world.’ Phil Walsh Partner/Practice Manager, Miles & Partners LLP.
The LAG legal aid handbook 2017/18 gives practical, step by step guidance on conducting cases, getting paid, advocacy, financial and contract management, performance monitoring and quality standards and an overview of recent policy developments. There are separate chapters on all the major areas of law covered by legal aid and sections devoted to litigators and advisers, advocates and managers.
This edition has been updated to include:
• full coverage of the new 2017 crime contract
• latest changes and updates to the civil scheme
• discussion of current case law and hot topics in legal aid practice
• hints, tips and practical advice from how to manage a contract to navigating CCMS
• specialist chapters on billing, crime, public family law, private family law, housing, mental health, immigration and exceptional funding
• a dedicated section for advocates
• guidance on managing legal aid work and tendering for contracts
• a full round up of the latest policy developments
The only comprehensive guide to the whole legal aid scheme, the new edition features chapters written by expert contributors Anthony Edwards, Richard Charlton, Steve Hynes, Solange Valdez-Symonds and Katie Brown. The LAG legal aid handbook 2017/18 is packed full of case studies, checklists and practical tips. It provides clear and easy to follow guidance on the ever more complex legal aid system and is essential reading for everyone involved in legal aid from new caseworkers to experienced lawyers and managers.
The LAA has published its latest quarterly statistics, for October to December 2016, and they make grim reading.
Filed under Civil, Crime, Family, Housing, Immigration, LASPO, Policy, Social welfare
The brand new edition of the LAG Legal Aid Handbook will be published at the beginning of April. Fully revised and updated, this edition features
The Handbook is edited by Vicky Ling and Simon Pugh, and features contributions from a range of subject experts including Anthony Edwards, Steve Hynes, Richard Charlton, Solange Valdez-Symonds and Katie Brown.
You can pre-order your copy now by e-mailing: direct.orders@marston.co.uk or phoning: 01235 465577, or by clicking here.
Filed under Actions Against the Police, Advocacy, Articles, Civil, Clinical Negligence, Community Care, Costs, Crime, Family, Handbook, Housing, Immigration, LASPO, Mental Health, Policy, Public Law, Social welfare
The LAA has issued an invitation to express interest in the delivery of services under paras 32 (2) and (3) and 32A (2) and (3) of Schedule 1 of LASPO. These are employment law claims or other damages claims by victims of trafficking or of modern slavery arising out of the trafficking or slavery.
These cases are in the miscellaneous category, and therefore existing providers will have limited ability to offer Legal Help work. The LAA is offering an additional 10 matter starts to successful applicants, which must be used for this work, and with a facility to apply for more if needed. The invitation is open to all current holders of civil contracts, who will therefore have a licence to carry out certificated work arising out of any Legal Help cases taken.
The response form can be found here, and must be returned by noon on 12 January 2017.
Filed under Civil, Immigration, LASPO, Social welfare
Following its successful appeal in IS in the Court of Appeal, the LAA announced that it would no longer fund cases that were “poor” or “borderline”. We questioned at the time whether it could lawfully take such an approach before the regulations that set out the merits tests were amended.
Amending regulations have now been laid and come into force on 22nd July. However, the LAA has changed its policy in the last month.
Funding for “borderline” cases will now remain in place in much the same way as before. But where cases categorised as “poor” but not “very poor” would be funded pre-IS, from 22nd July they won’t be. A new category of “marginal” prospects of success has been created for cases where prospects are 45% or above, which will be funded with the same stricter criteria that apply to borderline cases. “Poor” now means below 45%, and those cases drop out of funding.
If you didn’t apply for funding in a borderline or marginal case because of the LAA’s erroneous announcement last month, it will now be worth doing so.
The new criteria don’t apply to any cases where the initial application was made before 22nd July 2016.
More on the LAA site here.
The Supreme Court has issued its judgment in the residence test. As we reported at the time of the hearing, the Court took the very unusual step of upholding the appeal partway through the case. It’s now given its reasons.
In The Public Law Project, R (on the application of) v Lord Chancellor [2016] UKSC 39, Lord Neuburger gave the only judgment, the other six justices agreeing. He only dealt with the first ground of appeal – ultra vires – it being agreed that, as the case won on that ground alone it wasn’t necessary to deal with the other ground (discrimination).
Lord Neuburger held that LASPO defines what civil legal aid services are to be made available by reference to the issue of law, the nature of the services and the need and ability to pay of the individual requiring the services. There is nothing in the Act that excludes groups of people on the grounds of personal circumstances or personal characteristics beyond that – such as resident status – and nothing in the Act that enables such an exclusion to be brought in using the powers given to make secondary legislation. He also noted the strong presumption in statutory interpretation that every Act applies not just to persons belonging to the territory affected by the Act, but also to “foreigners…within its territory”.
We’ve remarked before on the varying interpretations of the statutory purpose of LASPO. Lord Neuburger addressed that as well; “the purpose of Part 1 of LASPO was, in very summary terms, to channel civil legal aid on the basis of the nature and importance of the issue, an individual’s need for financial support, the availability of other funding, and the availability of other forms of dispute resolution. The exclusion of individuals from the scope of most areas of civil legal aid on the ground that they do not satisfy the residence requirements of the proposed order involves a wholly different sort of criterion from those embodied in LASPO and articulated in the 2011 paper.” This is a helpful formulation, putting the emphasis back on targeting need rather than reducing costs.
However, although it’s now clear that the residence test can’t be brought in by statutory instrument, it still could be done by primary legislation. The previous Prime Minister, David Cameron, made clear he supported that – though no legislative plans had been announced. It remains to be seen whether Theresa May – and whoever she appoints as Lord Chancellor – agrees.
Filed under Civil, Family, Housing, Immigration, LASPO, Public Law, Social welfare, Uncategorized
We reported the likely impact of the Court of Appeal in The Director of Legal Aid Casework and Lord Chancellor v IS [2016] EWCA Civ 464. The Court found that the merits test, limiting legal aid to cases with a prospect of success over 50% was lawful.
Following the earlier decision by Collins J, the LAA had widened the merits test in 2015 to include the possibility of funding in cases which were poor or borderline. The LAA has now told the representative bodies that with immediate effect, it will no longer fund applications for civil legal aid representation certificates with less than a 50%, or borderline, prospect of success. It says practitioners should do the same when exercising delegated functions.
The LAA says that it is ‘considering’ changes to the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations, which set out the merits tests, but no changes have yet been made. It’s not clear to us that the LAA has the power to refuse applications that meet the criteria in the regulations (including the borderline and poor criteria), or that it would be acting lawfully if it did so, unless the regulations were actually amended. However, it has made it clear that it will not fund such cases with immediate effect.
This could change if permission to appeal to the Supreme Court is given; but for now practitioners need to take this into account when using delegated functions or making applications to the LAA.
Click the cover to buy the Manual
Click the cover to buy the toolkit
Click the cover to buy the toolkit
Legal aid in the news Legal aid in the news
Legal Aid Handbook 