The recent change done to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012

(LASPO) is the Post Implementation Review No.1.2019. Before 1949, the UK had a piecemeal system
of providing assistance to those people who could not afford to access the courts or pay for advice
from a lawyer. The Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949 introduced a consistent approach in England and
Wales based on a means test. Its overall aim was to make legal aid and advice more readily available
for “persons of small or moderate means”. Since then, there have been many changes to the scope
and terms of legal aid, including through five acts of parliament.

The most recent was the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which
forms the basis of the current system. A review of this Act was published in February 2019 and the
provision of legal assistance remains a disputed area of policy. Rushcliffe Committee
Recommendations (which led to the passing of the Legal Aid and Advise Act 1949). For legal aid, it
set out a number of principles, which included the following: Legal aid should be available in all
courts. It “should not be limited to those who are normally classed as poor but should include a
wider income group”. Those who cannot afford to pay anything should receive the service free, but
there should be a “scale of contributions for those who can pay something”. The cost of the scheme
should be borne by the state. Barristers and solicitors should receive “adequate remuneration” for
their services

Changes made to LA for Civil & Family matters: -Issues placed on a "spectrum of objective
importance", Highest end of the spectrum: Cases where individual's life is at stake / at risk of serious
physical harm / liberty at stake / face intervention by the State in their family affairs which could
result in their children being removed from their care / judicial review / matters where external
factors beyond their control have affected their lives e,g : individual detained of their mental health
challenge their detention). C/f Proceedings where individual seeking monetary compensation are
not considered justified for public funding.

Areas of Civil & Family Law to be excluded from scope of LA,Ancillary relief cases (disputes
on FP upon divorce) where domestic violence (DV) is not present. Disputes on Financial Provision can
& should be resolved btwn the parties. Clinical negligence -ought to be funded by CFA. (Conditional
Fee Agreement) Consumer & general contract cases. Education Employment -other sources of help
available (Trade Unions), unless unlawful discrimination cases. Welfare benefits -availability of help
& advice from voluntary organisations. Debt matters where the client's home is not at risk. Other
housing matters other than repossession, immediate risk of homelessness. Immigration cases other
than detention & asylum Private law -children & family cases where DV not present

Although excluded, LC may grant LA where the LSC requests it. -Exceptional funding where
LA provision is necessary to full fill domestic & international legal obligations (ECHR). The above legal
aid cuts are based on these factors’ Objective importance of the issue Litigant's ability to present
their own case. Availability of alternative sources of funding. Availability of other routes to
resolution. Areas to retain LA: Civil & Family matters .Asylum (risks of persecution, torture or death if
an asylum seeker is returned to an unsafe country). immigration detention cases. Claims against
public authorities -serious wrong-doing, abuse of power / significant breach of human rights /
negligent acts / omissions (significant public interest). Allegations of abuse & sexual assault. Mental
health cases especially for capacity detention. Not for tort / general damages claim. Debt matters
where client's home is at immediate risk.Housing -concerns repossession with the immediate risk of
homelessness, serious housing disrepair (seeking repair c/f damages). Domestic Violence & forced
marriage cases. Family mediation in private family law cases. International child abduction
 Criticisms of the legal aid cuts: Clinical negligence-especially if it concerns a life-changing
injury. Access to Ct and advise is crucial to ensure a proper assessment of the damages to be
recovered from the defendant. A CFA agreement may be difficult to secure as it depends on the
willingness of the lawyers to take up these highly complex cases without any upfront payment by the
client. Settlement without a trial may also be unjust as the amount may not be adequate.

Clinical negligence may affect the disabled & elderly by nature of their greater need for
medical treatment. Education disputes –especially special education needs may affect a child’s
educational & future life choices. Welfare benefits disputes- detrimental effect on the elderly,
socially and economically disadvantaged. Extremely important as it concerns the only source of
income they may have and rely on it for basic necessities.

House of Commons Justice Committee in March 2015 on the effect of LASPO 2012. It has
failed to meet 3 out of 4 key objectives of the Ministry of Justice one of which is to target legal aid to
those who need it the most & deliver better overall value for money for the tax payer. here has been
an underspend in the civil legal aid budget because the Ministry has not ensured that many people
who are eligible for legal aid are able to access it. Harmful effect on the legal aid market & providers
of publicly funded legal services.

Interim report of Bach Commission on Access to Justice published 28th November 2016 Key
Findings Fewer people can access financial support for a legal case. There has been a huge decrease
in the numbers of people who are eligible for legal aid. Most cases involving housing, welfare, debt,
immigration, medical negligence and family law have been removed from scope. In the 1980s,
around 80 per cent of households were eligible to civil legal aid, but by 2008 that figure had dropped
to 29 per cent. At the same time as whole areas of legal problems were taken out of scope by
LASPO, a new means test was introduced for those areas which remained.

This reduced the group of those eligible for legal aid even further. The legal aid calculation
sets rigid allowances without any flexibility to account for the reality of people’s finance. The
number of law centres has halved between 2005 and 2015. From 2009- 10 to 2013-14, there was a
drop in 90 per cent of people getting access to legal advice or assistance for social welfare issues.
Courts and tribunal fees are increasing, making it impossible for the poorest to access the legal
system at all.

Access to justice, and thus the rule of law, is under threat. Exceptional case funding has
failed to deliver for those in need. The exceptional case funding (ECF) scheme, designed to mitigate
the effects of LASPO cuts to legal aid, has failed. The government suggested around 847 children and
4,888 young adults would be granted ECF each year. Yet between October 2013 and June 2015 only
8 children and 28 young adults were granted legal aid under the scheme.

As to post effect of Lapso the current conservative government introduced changes to tackle
the problems highlighted in the review. In relation to the problems under the means test, the
government mentioned this must help the allocation of public resources to those in need and for
contribution apply to those can affort to contribute such costs failry. This makes the government to
bring forward less stringent merits test in certain cases and meet today’s living standards.

Next in relation to the exceptional cases funding scheme failing to act as the safety net,
government will work with legal practitioners to consider whether the process to apply this can be
simplified and forms and guidance are accessible as possible. Government launch a campaight to
improve awareness by creating online eligibility checker in relation to the lack of awareness of which
inidivudl qualift to legal aid.
 Gov also expand the scope of legal aid to cover special guardianship as an alternative model
for family legal aid by working with The Law Society. For problems with telephone gateway gov will
remove mandatory element which is requires individuals to seek advice over the telephone in
discrimination, debt and special educational need cases and reinstate immediate access to face to
face advice. As for LIP, gov support the delivery of pro bono services as this empowers legal
practitioners.

Gov told that this legal aid must be taken in broader view. There are other effective ways to
support someone from early stages and in a online guide aims towards the provision of legal
support. Technology play a huge role in opening up services when party are not in position for face
to face session. This shows that gov are more into modernising the justice system as UK can become
a global beacon for new and innovative technologies supporting people access justice. This
document is the beginning of process and are exploring different and innovative ways of supporting
people.

Conclusion The aims of the Legal Aid and Services Act 1949 are no longer met. The current
scheme affects access to justice (civil justice), it is severely limited and excluded by categories.
Today, more emphasis on privatisation of civil justice.