LEGAL AID REFORMS

[Alison J Stevens]

Legal Aid Minister Willy Bach has today announced the government will tighten the rules for civil legal aid so that fraudsters are uncovered at an early stage, and funding is better
targeted.

The changes, which were consulted on from July to October last year in the Legal Aid: Refocusing on Priority Cases consultation, will tighten
rules so legal aid is not wasted on funding low value damages claims
against public bodies, or on hopeless judicial reviews.

The changes will also mean that before legal aid is granted in a divorce or child contact dispute, the other side will be given an opportunity to provide evidence if the applicant is financially
ineligible for legal aid. Currently the onus is on people to contact
the Legal Services Commission (LSC) if they have evidence. In future
the LSC will contact opponents and check applicants' eligibility before
granting legal aid

The changes will also restrict access to domestic civil legal aid for non-residents, and restructure the LSC's committee dealing with cases of wider public interest.

The introduction of these new conditions is expected to deliver savings to the legal aid budget of approximately £6 million per year. However the changes will also deliver more significant savings in terms
of preventing unmeritorious claims from being made.

Legal Aid Minister Lord Bach said:

'Civil legal aid provides critical support for the most vulnerable people on a range of important matters, from debt, housing, and employment advice to representation in important family and public law
proceedings.

'The government devotes very significant resources to civil legal aid. It is therefore important that we regularly look to ensure we're getting the best value for money and even more importantly that the
people who need help most are able to get it.

We were impressed with the representations received during the consultation and have made significant revisions to many of our original proposals. The changes we have announced will ensure that
fraudulent applications are detected before public funds are expended
on them, and that legal aid is better targeted.'

The new measures will be introduced in April 2010. Read the consultation response document.

Notes to editors

1. In ancillary relief (financial provision on divorce) and private law children cases, the other side will be notified of the legal aid application and given 14 days to provide any evidence that the
   applicant is financially ineligible for funding. This requirement will
   not be applied to domestic violence cases, or other emergency
   applications.
2. Non-residents will no longer have routine access to civil legal aid, other than for immigration, asylum, child abduction, forced marriage and emergency housing cases.
3. Funding will still be available to non-residents, on an exceptional basis, for human rights challenges against the UK government, and applications will be decided, independently from government, by the
   Legal Services Commission.
4. Public interest considerations allow cases to be granted funding even where the benefits to the individual litigant alone would not justify the likely costs, because other people will benefit from the
   outcome of the proceedings. Our changes will expand the role of the
   committee that considers these cases, and strengthen the rules so that
   cases will only receive public funding on this basis if there are
   realistic prospects of the outcome of the case providing benefits to
   others.

This will have a drastic effect on cases where there is a perceived injustice, with regards to biased Psychological assesments, where Parents are deemed to have a personality order,and the Guardians report suggests the only alternative is adoption,and the Parents Childrens panel Solicitor doesn't challenge the decision,and has pandered to the Local Authority, thus leaving the parents to sack their solicitor,and try and represent themselves, or get a Mackenzie friend for representation, they will not be able to apply to the high court for judicial review.
And with reference to suing Local Authorities, this happens very rarely.happens.

[Alison J Stevens]

This will have a drastic effect on cases where there is a perceived injustice, with regards to biased Psychological assesments, where Parents are deemed to have a personality order,and the Guardians report suggests the only alternative is adoption,and the Parents Childrens panel Solicitor doesn't challenge the decision,and has pandered to the Local Authority, thus leaving the parents to sack their solicitor,and try and represent themselves, or get a Mackenzie friend for representation, they will not be able to apply to the high court for judicial review.
And with reference to suing Local Authorities, this happens very rarely.happens.