Evaluation Of Access To Justice

Question 1

Evaluation of civil funding (points)

Answer 1

-criteria set by lord chancellor (gov) but lots of sources where can get advice
-lack of funding and lawyers but money fairly distributed and education and health care benefit
-eligibility - means tested. But without people who can afford would still apply
-advice deserts - but other ways of getting funding
+CFA - however hidden costs

Question 2

Criteria set by lord chancellor

Answer 2

-2013 LC set criteria for making legal aid services available to indivs. Restrict circumstances which can be granted. Controversial. Need to consider if withholding aid may claim impossible or unfair
-legality of guidance challenged in R v Director of legal aid case work. COA: exceptional case funding guidelines unlawful, bar too high. COA said s10(3) of LASPO legal aid required to be granted where failure to would be breach of EU law. Guidance revised
-BUT still a lot of sources where can get advice that have higher knowledge than high street firms eg employment, housing

Question 3

Lack of funding and lawyers

Answer 3

-Extensive cuts to legal aid budget over years, limited access to justice
-Cut affect those in need, hitting those who need assistance in mag court, impossible to satisfy tests. Means testing levels so low so can’t qualify.
-but other sectors like education and health able to benefit

Question 4

Eligibility (means tested issues)

Answer 4

-Mag court strict tests, levels of income allowed = low. 3/4 adults don’t qualify. Cc less severe but more serious and expensive.
-even where enough legal services providers in an area, only ppl with low income can qualify. 2016 20+ senior lawyers and directors of legal aid wrote to guardian saying how had bad impact on whether vulnerable people can access justice
-however without, those who can afford would still apply and lower the funding

Question 5

Advice deserts

Answer 5

-Extensive cuts to legal aid budget, limited access to justice
-Lack of lawyers, fewer sol tasking on this work, drop in law firms doing crim legal aid work, 1990s 5000 firms, 2012 less than 2000.
-lack of lawyers to take on certain cases. Eg for housing case fallen dramatically. Laspo altered criteria so number of cases where aid provided fell by half in 2012. Another 18% decrease in 2015 and 16.
-but alt means of getting funding, eg private, CFA’s law centres, citizens advice

Question 6

CFA

Answer 6

-Private funding - CFA’s with lawyers are main source of funding for those claiming for PI
-Agreements allow people to claim if can’t afford
-But hidden costs, sol only take cases where they have high chance winning, not take on otherwise, success fee attached
-also need to take out after the event insurance, costly.

Question 7

Evaluation for criminal cases

Answer 7

-interests of justice test, but merits test also cause issues (gov)
-extensive cuts to legal aid budget
-rise in litigants in person (private)
-many places to get aid but cuts so overwhelmed.

Question 8

Interests of justice

Answer 8

-Determine who can access funding. Test applied if situations which shown real prospect of success. Strict application, risk of imprisonment dft w more convictions likely to be imprisoned. More likely to receive help. D less likely to go to prison less likely to receive aid.
-merits test cause issues ‘interests of justice’ funding cut so very few cases eligible
-but not fair that if more likely to be imprisoned them more likely to get aid

Question 9

Extensive cuts

Answer 9

-Limited access to justice. Cuts affect those in need, eg mag court - can’t satisfy legal aid tests. Means testing eligibility so low v few people qualify

Question 10

Rise in litigants (priv)

Answer 10

-Private funding allows to pick and choose right lawyer but v expensive

Question 11

Many places to get aid

Answer 11

-But cuts to legal aid so outside agencies overwhelmed with cases