The United Kingdom High Court last week granted a women’s advocacy group permission to challenge the lawfulness of government changes to legal aid. The organisation, Rights of Women, is represented by the Public Law Project and supported by the UK Law Society, which has provided an indemnity against adverse costs. They claim that changes are preventing victims of violence of domestic abuse from getting legal aid for family cases, even if there has been violence or there is an ongoing risk of violence.
The changes to legal aid brought in under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LAPSO) require victims of domestic violence to provide a prescribed form of evidence in order to obtain family law legal aid. Under LAPSO most private family law areas have been removed from the scope of civil legal aid. There is an exception for victims of domestic violence, however this is only under specific circumstances and with strict and prohibitive eligibility requirements and conditions. The obligatory evidence required includes a letter from a GP, proof that the applicant spent time at a refuge, or needed one and it was not available, and verification that the abusive partner has been convicted or is on bail. In addition to this, there is a 24 month time limit on admissible evidence, including medical evidence of physical abuse.
Andrew Caplen, President of the Law Society, has identified domestic violence as an area of priority as part of the Society’s new Access to Justice Campaign. In a recent speech, he highlighted research from Rights of Women, Women’s Aid and Welsh Women’s Aid which found that nearly half of those who suffered domestic violence could not provide the prescribed evidence in order to obtain legal aid. The majority of those who were ineligible took no further action, while others represented themselves or hired private solicitors. Additionally, non-physical abuse is included in the legal definition of domestic violence however it is nearly impossible to provide sufficient documentary evidence to prove psychological abuse for the purposes of legal aid, according to Caplen.
The charity is claiming that the regulations are ultra vires and infringe Articles 6 and 8 of the Human Rights Act, and have asked the High Court to quash them.
Click here to read a press release from the Public Law Project.
Click here to read a Guardian report on the issue.
On the same day, the High Court ruled that the Lord Chancellor acted ‘unlawfully’ in the way he consulted on controversial plans to shake up criminal legal aid. According to the Court, the Ministry of Justice failed to disclose the findings of two key reports on plans to introduce new dual criminal legal aid contracts. This was so unfair as to amount to illegality. Claimants in the case were the Criminal Law Solicitors’ Association and the London Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association. The Court ordered a short reconsultation of the legal profession.
Click here to read more on the case.