'Access to Justice in Light of Legal Aid Cuts': Rachel Robinson, LIBERTY
Duration: 27 mins 46 secs
Share this media item:
Embed this media item:
Embed this media item:
About this item
| Description: |
On Friday 1st February 2013, the Cambridge University Students' Pro Bono Society hosted a talk at the Faculty of Law by Rachel Robinson from LIBERTY entitled "Access to Justice in Light of Legal Aid Cuts".
For more information about the Cambridge University Students' Pro Bono Society, please refer to http://www.societies.cam.ac.uk/probono/ |
|---|
| Created: | 2013-02-05 12:28 |
|---|---|
| Collection: |
Cambridge Law: Public Lectures from the Faculty of Law
Cambridge University Students' Pro Bono Society Lectures |
| Publisher: | University of Cambridge |
| Copyright: | Mr D.J. Bates |
| Language: | eng (English) |
| Distribution: |
World
(downloadable)
|
| Keywords: | Legal aid; Social welfare; Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act; Legal Aid Bill; |
| Categories: |
iTunes - Psychology & Social Science - Law |
| Explicit content: | No |
| Abstract: | Rachel Robinson who works with Liberty, and has a background in legal aid has worked on scrutinizing the Legal Aid Bill, which aims to cut the legal budget and restricts legally aided representation for many who cannot afford it. The Legal Aid Bill received royal assent in May. The effect is to exclude all areas from legal aid funding unless expressly included in the statute. It is envisioned that the new scheme will be run by the Lord Chancellor, leading to concerns about conflict of interest and the separation of powers. Lack of legal representation is likely to lead to litigants representing themselves without understanding the justice system or indeed the legal context. It is likely that the biggest impact will be felt by individuals seeking to hold the government to account in judicial review claims, oral renewals and private claims- particularly in the area of family law. Liberty predicts that the overall effect of the cuts will in fact be to waste court time and thus drive up running costs, an increase in litigation as individuals fail to receive legal advice that could lead to settlement and a drop in the internal standards of public bodies due to less stringent judicial review. |
|---|---|