Home » Posts tagged 'Justice For All'
Tag Archives: Justice For All
Legal aid debate in the House of Lords
The BBC Democracy Live website will carry the Legal Aid and Sentencing Bill debate in the House of Lords. It is expected that the Coalition government will win this comfortably. This article was first published on this LegalAware blog on September 27 2011.
This morning, @paulwaugh chaired a #fringe meeting at #Lab11, as part of a series of non-partisan panel discussions to promote awareness of the new Legal Aid and Sentencing Bill. He started off the morning’ proceedings by introduing a @soundoffjustice video about the personal impact of #legalaid cuts to begin, #lab11 #fringe. The panel this morning consisted of Lucy Scott-Moncrieff, Vice President of the Law Society, Steve Hynes from the Legal Action Group (Justice For All Coalition; please listen to @charonqc’c podcast), and Andy Slaughter MP (Labour MP for Hammersmith and Fulham). The event was hosted by DODS, and chaired by Paul Waugh (Editor of PoliticsHome.com).
The video presented the wider impact on children and families, explaining that these cuts were hitting the most vulnerable people in society, at their most vulnerable time. The presentation, consisting of personal stories, emphasized that the legal aids are not a ‘cost saving’ at all, and may end up costing money in the long run.
Steve Hynes explained that the campaign is highly dependent on parliamentaries. The video demonstrates the decimation of civil law, leading to 50% of the service disappearing. This gives the impression that the legal aids are in fact ideologically-driven. Steve explained the need for the campaign to pick its ground. Jackson never wished to preside over the reforms with the cuts occurring. The report from LJ Jackson indeed is very comprehensive as reported by @TheLawyerKaty. Medical negligence is one such area. Steve Hynes thinks that amendments are possible in social welfare for law, involving the higher tribunals, in the House of Lords. The Tories took the view that the higher tribunals were considering conflicts of facts, but Steve argued passionately that this is clearly not the case. Steve feel that it must come into scope. Jim Sandbach succeeded in a Liberal Democrat amendment, getting social welfare back into scope.
Their Lordships apparently understand the need for disabled people to have rights. There must be independence in legal aid entitlement, and reforms of the LSC could mean that ministers make judicial reviews of their own departments, which is a nonsense. There should be no bias in decision-making, which will affect the credibility of both ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’ decisions. The Coalition considers that it must consider ‘exceptional cases’, but the reality is that 50% of the family living aid firms will be getting out of the legal aid system – it is therefore fine to talk about ‘exceptional cases’, but it is essential to consider what sort of network there is to support legal aid. Labour when it came into power had a vision of the ‘community legal aid service’, which Steve considers to be a good vision, which the ‘Justice for all’ coalition would like to be part of – Steve will fight for concessions, and needs to campaign for the future. This is about maintaining the ‘rule of law’ and can only be achieved through a civil system.
Lucy Scott-Moncrieff considered that ‘there is a hearty need for a good practical response’, but there should be a consideration of the social justice ideals underlying the debate. The proposed cuts undermine the rule of law; no-one is above the law, and the flip side is that nobody is outside the law. The European Court of Human Rights suggest that rights are ‘practical and effective, not theoretical and illusory’. Litigating should be a last resort, as it is complicated and uncertain. Going to lawyers is a good step because they can litigate, and the opposite side take the case more seriously. Non-lawyers do talk about their frustration. Children and adults under the age of 24 (@SoundoffJustice) need help. Lucy remarked that it is a good idea to get this publication off the Law Society website (the Law Society has a very active section of its website devoted to legal aid funding). Lucy cited an example of ‘even a 17-year old would be unable to get support’, ‘a person whose identity was stolen and experienced debt problems’, and ‘a student who was unable to access special educational needs’. Lucy also considered welfare benefits through the example of a person who had been given disability living allowance and needed the welfare benefits to prevent eviction – he did not have the legal and medical knowledge to represent himself optimally.
Furthermore, the criminal justice system also currently relies upon lawyers who can obtain the proper evidence. The Coalition has a responsibility to ‘will the means’, in addition to the rights. The Jackson Reforms must be borne in mind. Legal aid is only a benefit to a very small sample of society. There are lots of people who rely on ‘conditional fee agreements’ – the loser pays the winner costs, and now the winner has pay for his or her own costs. The purpose of damages is to put the person back to the pre-contractual position, but the person is still going to have to pay fees. The “telephone gateway system” does not appear to make intuitive sense, because a person may have difficulty in using a telephone (e.g. a person in ‘community care cases’ in care homes). Where are people going to go if the CAB sytem? They’re going to go to MP surgeries, or councilors. Sound off for justice are continuing to fight.
Lord Willy Bach explained that Labour never threatened the criminal law system as a Labour minister. As a criminal lawyer, Willy feels – in what he has now formulated as ‘the justice gap‘ – that the abolition of criminal law, getting early advice, is ridiculous – as legal aid is meant to address early intervention, upholding defendants’ rights. A lawyer should be able to say whether cases are nonsense, or whether they should progress. It’s practical and moral nonsense. What is the point of ‘rule of law’? The Bill is going to come to the Lords, but the Lords will do their best to mitigate against the effects of poor legislation. Lord Bach urged the need to support the @Soundoffjustice campaign, especially through the use of cros-bench peers or LibDem peers.
Andy Slaughter MP had just done a fringe meeting for the ‘Young Fabians’. The Bill does not have a prescriptive agenda, and is a sense an extension of what has gone before. It might have a rouse to cut the prison population. The Jackson Reforms will cost the public money. The AA have voted against the Jackson reforms, and this is interesting as motorists constitute a large group of consumers. Restricting access to justice, and tipping the system away from private defendants appear to be unfortunate consequences of the Bill when enacted, according to Andy, therefore all the campaigns promoting awareness of the legal aid cuts are worth supporting.
Legal aid cuts: justice for all?
This morning, @paulwaugh chaired a #fringe meeting at #Lab11, as part of a series of non-partisan panel discussions to promote awareness of the new Legal Aid and Sentencing Bill. He started off the morning’ proceedings by introduing a @soundoffjustice video about the personal impact of #legalaid cuts to begin, #lab11 #fringe. The panel this morning consisted of Lucy Scott-Moncrieff, Vice President of the Law Society, Steve Hynes from the Legal Action Group (Justice For All Coalition; please listen to @charonqc’c podcast), and Andy Slaughter MP (Labour MP for Hammersmith and Fulham). The event was hosted by DODS, and chaired by Paul Waugh (Editor of PoliticsHome.com).
The video presented the wider impact on children and families, explaining that these cuts were hitting the most vulnerable people in society, at their most vulnerable time. The presentation, consisting of personal stories, emphasized that the legal aids are not a ‘cost saving’ at all, and may end up costing money in the long run.
Steve Hynes explained that the campaign is highly dependent on parliamentaries. The video demonstrates the decimation of civil law, leading to 50% of the service disappearing. This gives the impression that the legal aids are in fact ideologically-driven. Steve explained the need for the campaign to pick its ground. Jackson never wished to preside over the reforms with the cuts occurring. The report from LJ Jackson indeed is very comprehensive as reported by @TheLawyerKaty. Medical negligence is one such area. Steve Hynes thinks that amendments are possible in social welfare for law, involving the higher tribunals, in the House of Lords. The Tories took the view that the higher tribunals were considering conflicts of facts, but Steve argued passionately that this is clearly not the case. Steve feel that it must come into scope. Jim Sandbach succeeded in a Liberal Democrat amendment, getting social welfare back into scope.
Their Lordships apparently understand the need for disabled people to have rights. There must be independence in legal aid entitlement, and reforms of the LSC could mean that ministers make judicial reviews of their own departments, which is a nonsense. There should be no bias in decision-making, which will affect the credibility of both ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’ decisions. The Coalition considers that it must consider ‘exceptional cases’, but the reality is that 50% of the family living aid firms will be getting out of the legal aid system – it is therefore fine to talk about ‘exceptional cases’, but it is essential to consider what sort of network there is to support legal aid. Labour when it came into power had a vision of the ‘community legal aid service’, which Steve considers to be a good vision, which the ‘Justice for all’ coalition would like to be part of – Steve will fight for concessions, and needs to campaign for the future. This is about maintaining the ‘rule of law’ and can only be achieved through a civil system.
Lucy Scott-Moncrieff considered that ‘there is a hearty need for a good practical response’, but there should be a consideration of the social justice ideals underlying the debate. The proposed cuts undermine the rule of law; no-one is above the law, and the flip side is that nobody is outside the law. The European Court of Human Rights suggest that rights are ‘practical and effective, not theoretical and illusory’. Litigating should be a last resort, as it is complicated and uncertain. Going to lawyers is a good step because they can litigate, and the opposite side take the case more seriously. Non-lawyers do talk about their frustration. Children and adults under the age of 24 (@SoundoffJustice) need help. Lucy remarked that it is a good idea to get this publication off the Law Society website (the Law Society has a very active section of its website devoted to legal aid funding). Lucy cited an example of ‘even a 17-year old would be unable to get support’, ‘a person whose identity was stolen and experienced debt problems’, and ‘a student who was unable to access special educational needs’. Lucy also considered welfare benefits through the example of a person who had been given disability living allowance and needed the welfare benefits to prevent eviction – he did not have the legal and medical knowledge to represent himself optimally.
Furthermore, the criminal justice system also currently relies upon lawyers who can obtain the proper evidence. The Coalition has a responsibility to ‘will the means’, in addition to the rights. The Jackson Reforms must be borne in mind. Legal aid is only a benefit to a very small sample of society. There are lots of people who rely on ‘conditional fee agreements’ – the loser pays the winner costs, and now the winner has pay for his or her own costs. The purpose of damages is to put the person back to the pre-contractual position, but the person is still going to have to pay fees. The “telephone gateway system” does not appear to make intuitive sense, because a person may have difficulty in using a telephone (e.g. a person in ‘community care cases’ in care homes). Where are people going to go if the CAB sytem? They’re going to go to MP surgeries, or councilors. Sound off for justice are continuing to fight.
Lord Willy Bach explained that Labour never threatened the criminal law system as a Labour minister. As a criminal lawyer, Willy feels – in what he has now formulated as ‘the justice gap‘ – that the abolition of criminal law, getting early advice, is ridiculous – as legal aid is meant to address early intervention, upholding defendants’ rights. A lawyer should be able to say whether cases are nonsense, or whether they should progress. It’s practical and moral nonsense. What is the point of ‘rule of law’? The Bill is going to come to the Lords, but the Lords will do their best to mitigate against the effects of poor legislation. Lord Bach urged the need to support the @Soundoffjustice campaign, especially through the use of cros-bench peers or LibDem peers.
Andy Slaughter MP had just done a fringe meeting for the ‘Young Fabians’. The Bill does not have a prescriptive agenda, and is a sense an extension of what has gone before. It might have a rouse to cut the prison population. The Jackson Reforms will cost the public money. The AA have voted against the Jackson reforms, and this is interesting as motorists constitute a large group of consumers. Restricting access to justice, and tipping the system away from private defendants appear to be unfortunate consequences of the Bill when enacted, according to Andy, therefore all the campaigns promoting awareness of the legal aid cuts are worth supporting.
Islington Law Centre is pivotal in leading a campaign against legal aid cuts with Jeremy Corbyn
Islington Law Centre, Islington People’s Rights and Islington CAB, organised a “Justice for All” open morning at the Islington Law Centre on Friday 3rd June 2011. Students from the BPP Law School were strongly represented at the meeting, particularly the BPP Pro Bono Unit. Jeremy Corbyn, MP for North Islington, whose appointment to the Commons Select Committee has been widely praised is pictured here (on the left), with @legalaware from the BPP Legal Awareness Society, based at the BPP Business School (middle).
At worst, the reforms represent the end of legal aid for social welfare law. The Law Centre is paid for by legal aid, and grants locally. However, in large city areas such as Birmingham and Glasgow, there will be many people who will not have access to legal aid.
Jeremy Corbyn MP (furthest right) and Cllr Catherine West (middle), the Leader of Islington Council, were invited, and attended as, the main speakers at this event by Ruth Hayes, Director of Islington Law Centre (furthest left). The meeting was to discuss concern the deep concern that the Government’s proposals for legal aid will deny hundreds of thousands of people access to justice. This event was a chance to find out more about current legal advice provision in Islington, understand what the Government’s proposals would mean for low income Islington residents, and add your voice to the campaign. The event targeted primarily at an audience of staff, volunteers and members in community organisations and other front line agencies, whose own service users may rely on legal aid to find out about and exercise their legal rights. Cllr West provided that councillors have a vital role in explaining access to legal services, which can feed into making legal policy in the Council. Catherine emphasized that this reinforces a community culture.
Jeremy has always been a strong advocate of putting the case for Parliament. He felt that it is very important to change the debate from a pressure by the legal profession, into pressure by people who are worried about access to justice. Jeremy emphasised that we are currently in the midst of the Consultation on legal aid, and he personally is involved now in the Select Committee for Justice, as stated above. He said a big thank you to Islington Council for opening the Islington Law Centre in Upper Street. There is no competition in provision of legal aids, but there is a desperate need for support and advice. All of the stakeholders appear to be co-ordinating legal information effectively.
In his short thesis, he wished to expose a few myths. The national budget for legal aid is about £2bn, which is not much compared to a nuclear missile. The Government is trying to cut £350mn from there, which is a substantial cut. They happily claim that barristers and solicitors are paid a huge amount on legal aid, because of the “greed of the legal profession”. Some barristers do command high fees in the High Court, and there is a very small number of high profile cases. However, legal aid does support a lot of law centres nationally; and many law centres have ceased to function. Claimants are now lost in the system, because a number of law companies have disappeared. There is a lot of work being done on minimal money.
According to Jeremy, the Government also argues that more can be done through mediation. Jeremy believes that this is difficult – for example, in a contentious immigration case, legal aid can be applied for in relation to detention aspects. Jeremy believes that this is dealing with the symptoms, not the issue. Every case of disability living allowance is being analysed in an aggressive way; about two-thirds, however, are successful on appeal. This does not appear like a sensible use of public money, as the process is very traumatic. Finally, the Government also puts great store on mediation of ‘solved problems’; however, mediation does not often work, and is a “pipe dream”. You need good quality legal representation in certain cases of family aid. Legal aid provides the basis of doing that. That is why Jeremy is angry about the criticisms on the basis of cost. Legal aid can be considered as the ‘fourth pillar’ of the welfare state, and has to be paid for. Access to justice should be available to all, not just those who can afford it. The Government has had to delay the closing date on the consultation, because of the sheer volume of consultation reports. Jeremy will be arguing as central to the Commons Justice Select Committee that access to justice is very important, not just large corporations.
There is a petition, to be closed before next week. Jeremy advised the submission of the large numbers of petitions early next week, perhaps with a hand-in to the Ministry of Justice within ten days.
The Islington Law Centre will be celebrating its 40 years’ anniversary shortly, and offers a full range of legal services in ‘social law’, including education law, employment law, housing, law, immigration and asylum law, and welfare benefits law . The Law Centre offers a range of provisions, including initial advice, appeals and representations in higher courts. It has an open-door policy, and does not charge clients for its services. Three days a week the clinics are staffed by City law firms. The City law firms have urged the need for such volunteering activity to continue. The BPP Law School pro bono has been heavily involved in such work. A range of services could be threatened, however. The future could mean that there could be no welfare benefits service at all, and without legal aid there will not be opportunities for claimants. Similarly, the volume of debt cases is massive, and there will not be legal aid work available unless a claimant’s home is at risk; this will create huge strains for people. Employment law means that claimants often do not have access to large trade unions, often in small businesses with complex conditions. In education law services, some families report that the young people were so distressed, that they were actually suicidal. Such law work was held on Saturday, as a result of people who were now working, because they had re-integrated into society. The scope for housing law is limited, meaning that a lot of agencies will not survive. Immigration is a real concern in Islington, including the loss of representation by some firms such as Fisher Meredith. Asylum cases will still be in scope.
There will be a ‘telephone gateway’ to access to legal aid, problematic for people with insufficient credit, or have communication difficulties as a result of disability. It is the intention that about 75% legal aid cases will be dealt with by phone, taking away the genuine community component of legal aid. A lot of cases are multi-factorial, e.g. housing, debt and immigration, making such telephone consultations sub-optimal. A national phone service makes no use of local knowledge, diluting the effect of local specialist knowledge which can offer detailed, excellent, practical local support. A telephone service, in summary, is therefore iniquitous. It turns out the Equality and Human Rights Commission are seeking to implement a telephone advice, which is impossible for complex cases, particularly for claimants with communication difficulties. Jeremy represented the situation as a recipe for disaster, and needs to be properly supported as appropriate, for example with translation services.
“Islington’s People’s Rights” does offer an outreach service. The majority of welfare benefits work involves outreach, in mental health, disability, addiction, and other vulnerabilities. The changes proposed in legal aid will have a huge impact. A lot of claimants are going through an assessment, often at first stage, but increasingly at second stage, following appeal (despite failing at assessment despite a strong case). The impact of legal aid ceasing for welfare benefits and debt will have a devastating effect on that client group, and cannot be underestimated. If you are losing your home under 30, you might escape this lack of scope. Certainly, people are not optimistic about the effect of the reforms on the work with vulnerable members of the community. The need for services continues to get greater,
Lorna Reid, Welfare Benefits Advisor in the Islington Law Centre, drew special attention to the phrase, “undeserving poor” against, say, people with serious vulnerabilities such as medical addiction problems. Islington Law Centre currently has a success rate in turning over 80% of cases on appeal, and there is an increase in jobseekers’ allowance. A vast number of families are being pushed below the poverty line, people who cannot keep up with their debts, and their health suffers. The Council has run a successful form-filling clinic; 78 of 182 people had their claims were followed-up, and satisfied on the first claim (each claim takes about three hours). Without that additional help, there is no ‘form filling’ clinic. The demonisation of the poor in terms of language used by Iain Duncan Smith, e.g “lifestyle choice” is considered by Jeremy as ‘deeply offensive, rubbish and nonsense’; poorer people, who are trying to do their best in life, should be allowed to be demonised.
The author would like Jennifer Ball, from the Law Centres Federation, who has been pivotal in inspiring him about the importance of pro bono publico.
