A leading senior family court judge, Mr Justice Bodey, has recently warned of the impact that legal aid cuts are having on the justice system. This appears to reflect the growing judicial concerns in relation to the Ministry of Justice failing to review the significant effects of the 2012 Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act.
The main effect explored by Mr Justice Bodey in his speech was what he described as the ‘shaming’ situation in which individuals are forced to represent themselves in court having not qualified for legal help. This has even led to cases in which he has helped litigants in person by cross-examining witnesses on their behalf. This is especially poignant when one considers the somewhat overwhelming nature of court proceedings, particularly for someone who does not have the advantage of representation in an environment full of legal jargon and given the intensity of cross examination. He stated, ‘I find it shaming that in this country, with its fine record of justice and fairness, that I should be presiding over such cases’.
LASPO removed a total of £350m from the legal aid budget which resulted in an end to the right to legal representation in many areas of law including child custody, welfare, employment, immigration to name but a few. It was enacted primarily with the objective of reducing the government’s expenditure on legal spending in a climate of deficit and debt. However, it appears that the government failed to consider the impact such drastic cuts would have on the more vulnerable in society. Amnesty International have accused the cuts of creating a ‘two-tier’ system which ultimately denies the poorest in our society access to justice. This seems to have been overlooked however by the Ministry of Justice who maintain that ‘access to justice remains vital and continues to be at the heart of our reforms…we are focusing on legal aid resources on those who most need help’.
Research has shown that it has been the family courts that have been affected the worst by the reforms to the system. More than a third of family cases now involved unrepresented litigants. Mr Justice Bodey notes that these litigants do not possess the required skills or knowledge involved in successful advocacy and that he had felt their understandable frustration ‘first hand’. It seems as though LASPO has helped to create a system in which justice is limited to those who can afford it which hardly seems compatible with a system based upon principles including equality and democracy.
A review of LASPO and its impact is expected to be carried out by the Ministry of Justice next spring but until then it seems as though its far reaching and seemingly detrimental impacts are set to continue.