Search Results for: legal aid green paper

Green Paper on Legal Aid Initial Observations #2: Family mediation in private law family cases

This should be read in conjunction with my earlier post on the Green Paper as it relates to domestic violence.

It is said at 4.69 of the paper that wherever possible, it would be in the best interest of those involved in private law family cases which do not involve domestic violence to take a more direct role in their resolution, using mediation and keeping court proceedings to the minimum necessary. Legal aid will no longer be routinely available for such cases.

Legal aid will be retained for mediation in private law family cases, including private law children and family proceedings and ancillary relief. This will apply to cases without d.v. but even where d.v. is present family mediation will be offered.

A fixed amount of legal help (£150) will be available also to assist with advice during mediation and immediately following to formalise and give legal effect to any agreement reached.

In the words of Bugs, That’s it folks! I venture to suggest that £150 will go only a short distance towards drafting a consent order in AR, and towards preparing the necessary forms and applications for such order to be approved. That is always assuming of course that the parties have been able as Litigants in Person to sort out their own Decrees, from which the power to make such a consent order derives. Continue Reading…

Green Paper on Legal Aid – Initial Observations #1: Domestic Violence

I’ve decided to post several shorter posts about the green paper on legal aid published yesterday. This one will deal with domestic violence.

First some groundwork. The paper proposes that whilst the scope of legal aid will be shrunk, it will remain available for categories of work or in respect of classes of people the paper identifies as high priority or vulnerable respectively. The protected categories include cases centreing on allegations of abuse or assault of a person whilst in the care of a public body (eg care home sexual abuse cases), community care (eg provision of care for the elderly), debt cases where the individual’s home is at immediate risk and Domestic Violence.

Applicants for non-molestation orders, occupation orders who are victims of DV will continue to be covered, as will victims of forced marriage. Domestic violence is not defined, and it is unclear whether or not they will continue to be covered where is no allegation of a risk of physical harm. The tenor of the section in question (from page 41) suggests not, as the relevant paragraphs are heavily caveated with the repeated use of ‘where the victim is at risk of physical harm’. This would be a reduction in scope if correct. Continue Reading…

Legal Aid Update

In fact it’s been a while since I’ve done more than whine tangentially about the Government’s attempt to wreck the legal aid system. It’s time for an update.

Media coverage of the Bill remains pretty thin on the ground, but it has picked up a little (See for example this example from a local TV station, showcasing the lovely Totnes). There have been concessions on some points not connected to family law, such as police station representation. The Bill has had a rough ride in the Lords, and is due to go to Committee stage there next week. It should be interesting.

There is a whiff of good news, although I wouldn’t get too excited. There is some talk of a concession on domestic violence – with Djanogly saying that the Government view the definition of domestic abuse in the Bill as consistent with the ACPO definition of domestic abuse (it plainly isn’t) and that they would be happy to amend it – I think the argument runs like this: “Look, they say the same thing, you just can’t see it. But just for you, we’ll amend it. Alright?” Which rather begs the question “If you always intended it to mean what the ACPO definition says why the hell didn’t you just use that definition when you drafted the thing? And why has it taken so long to “clarify” that you always meant it to say that?” (that’s two questions, my bad).

Anyway, carping aside, this is good news if it happens – but it still does not deal with the important point that the detailed criteria to be met in order to actually qualify for legal aid are not contained in the Bill, and it is those which are most likely to exclude so many d.v. victims from accessing legal aid (the green paper makes clear that the criteria will be strict and victims will need to provide objective evidence from very limited categories). Baroness Butler-Sloss has asked for those criteria to be published so that they can be scrutinised alongside the Bill. That is essential, as they will otherwise be slipped through in some piece of secondary legislation. The manner of the climbdown on the ACPO definition is significant – this is not an acknowledgment that the Government had got it wrong, had been attempting to use too narrow a definition, to adopt a too stringent approach. All that has been acknowledged is poor drafting, not substantively bad policy. Campaigners on this issue must not let the Government off the hook the moment they adopt the ACPO guidance. And beyond that still undealt with are all those arguments about equality of arms for alleged perpetrators, the cross examination of victims by LiP perpetrators. Much to be dealt with… Continue Reading…