Analyse and evaluate whether funding meets legal needs [18]

Intro

vital part of English Legal System - enforce rights via fair representation
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) led to widespread concern about whether funding adequately meets needs of society

Civil - narrow scope + limited access

S.8 LASPO Limits funded cases to those listed in Schedule 1…
Personal Injury cases no longer qualify
S.10 LASPO Exceptional case funding where not granting aid would breach human rights - seen as too restrictive S v Director of Legal Aid Casework and Lord Chancellor - restrictive guidance was challenged successfully through Judicial Review
Only firms with contract with legal aid agency*
Telephone gateway service to streamline access but low public awareness and low referrals for face to face advice
Means + merits - excludes many people and there’s a rise in litigants in person

Criminal - conditional access and systemic pressures

S.16 LASPO - aid is available dependant on means amd merits test (criticised for undermining rule of law esp when liberty is at risk)
S.58 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 - suspects in custody can consult duty solicitor but can be delayed by superintendent or above if they think it may lead to others being alerted or tampering with evidence
defence solicitor call centre, criminal defence direct, public defender service (help broaden access but don’t fully address gaps caused by funding cuts)
Burden of representing oneself is particularly acute in the crim justice system as consequences can be severe
Forms going out of business as lack of publicly funded cases - legal aid deserts where access is particularly limited

Wider societal impact amd current issues

Welfare Reform Act 2012 significant effects especially changes to disability benefits.
As more people appeal decisions made by department for work and pensions - rising demand for legal support but don’t often qualify - vulnerable individuals left without help
Knock in effect on courts where judges must manage increasing numbers of unrepresented litigants slowing down proceedings + risk unjust outcomes

Arguments that needs are met

rise of ADR has offered a way to resolve out of court - reduces strain on system and may be more cost effective
Limiting to most serious has allowed gov to save money and redirect it to other public services
*Competition and standards between providers
Success of Pro bono initiatives like Bar Pro Bono Unit in cases like Heather Llott’s Inheritance Claim - still support

Conclusion