Access to Justice - LASPO Act of 2012
COLIN PANA U6
The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act of 2012 (LASPO) is a controversial piece of legislation that has gathered much attention in regards to its limiting effect on society’s access to justice. It is, however, important to consider the rationale behind the government's implementation of the act - that being the spirling cost of legal aid which stood at a figure of £2.2bn in 2010 while also ‘attempting’ to target the highest priority cases and those who need it most. Above all, despite the government’s intended objectives, this piece of legislation is underpinned by the negative unintended consequences that have ultimately left the most vulnerable members of our society without legal representation and legal guidance.
A Brief History:
The system that was formed under Clement Attlee’s labour government in 1949 under the name ‘Legal Aid and Advice Act’ had the sole aim to ‘provide legal advice for those of slender means and resources, so that no one would be financially unable to prosecute a just and reasonable claim…’ Legal Aid spending did indeed increase over time and stood at £1.4bn by 1995-96; reaching its apotheosis of £2.2 billion in 2010. The aftermath of the banking crisis in 2008 made the Labour government go into the 2010 election vowing to cut mainly criminal aid with its manifesto declaring “to help protect frontline services, we will find greater savings in legal aid and the courts system.” This idea was finally enacted through the coalition government in 2012 where the LASPO act was formed.
The Impacts:
The LASPO act introduced more stringent means testing, subsequently making it harder for people to qualify for legal aid while also making many choose between substantial debt or forgoing legal representation. This is clearly seen through the act's notion of ‘exceptional funding’ whereby an individual is only eligible for legal aid if that individual's gross annual income does not exceed £12,475. Originally, roughly 80% of the population qualified for legal aid but as means testing became tougher, data now shows that as few as 20% of people are now entitled. This has catastrophic knock-on effects in all areas of the law. Prior to the Act, legal aid was readily available to a wide range of civil cases including housing, employment and immigration. Its implementation has left many, particularly low-income individuals, facing complex legal challenges. Notably, the exclusion of family law has left many unrepresented in cases concerning divorce, child custody and domestic violence with statistics showing roughly 80% of cases involving at least one side of the dispute being unrepresented. The removal of legal aid for immigration cases has similarly affected many - people seeking asylum or facing deportation are now often left without adequate legal guidance while facing tremendous difficulties in navigating the legal system.
The government plans to cut the number of cases in the UK and Wales by 265,000 annually with many leading figures in the dispute like the Justice Minister, Jonathan Djanogly proclaiming, “At more than £2bn per year, we currently have one of the most expensive legal aid systems in the world”. While this is inherently true with the UK spending £39 a head on legal aid in 2009/2010 compared to that of other countries such as New Zealand only spending £8 a head, we should rather question if the LASPO act exacerbates existing societal inequalities and undermines the fundamental principle of equality before the law. Areas of legal advice previously covered by legal aid such as debt advice, employment and social welfare look to impact low-income families the hardest while simultaneously the number of advice agencies and legal centres doing this type of work has fallen significantly by 59% in recent years. The detrimental impacts on society that implementing the Act has led many like Nicholas Green, chair of the Bar Council of England and Wales, which represents barristers, to conclude that "The shrinkage of the justice system inevitably means a painful contraction of access to justice.” Universally, the idea of ‘accessibility’ and ‘fairness’ are somewhat salient ideas of how our legal system should act but in recent data, statistics show that as many as 53 million people (80% of the population) do not have access to a local education legal aid provider and 25.3m people do not have access to a local legal aid provider for housing advice.