Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) introduced under the coalition government, reformed the basis of legal aid. LASPO reforms to legal aid aimed to regulate the the distribution of legal aid in the UK; which denounced legal aid liability for private family disputes, immigration, housing, debt and social welfare cuts. According to the final equality Impact Assessment in the Bill of Moj*** the implementation of LASPO intends to eliminate the the excess distribution of legal resources at public and tax payers expense. Nevertheless, Legal aid cuts have resulted in inequalities within the justice system, which have ultimately failed the most vulnerable in society due to lack of legal resources to advice and support.
…show more content…
It is sustained that it is mandate that the litigant has a right to fair trial, with access to the present their case before the court. Therefore, to reject an individual’s right to legal aid is essentially a breach of this. Legal aid cuts effects were not only costly, but also established a limit of those of which who were now entitled to the support of legal aid. Legal aid cuts have had an impact on the unlawful discrimination of marginalized groups within the legal system, as a result of this. For instance, the residence test which had penalised minorities, proposing that only those lawfully residents in the UK are entitled to civil legal aid. This was held to be unlawfully discriminatory (R v Lord Chancellor, 2016) *** it is held that those subjected to English law are entitled to equal protection of the law, therefore, this is unfair persecution of minorities. This suggests that legal aid cuts have left marginalised groups most vulnerable to such social injustice, which further excludes those to pursue legal …show more content…
Despite the urge that law firms should undertake more free legal cases. However, law firms are unable to afford to take on such demand of free legal work. This has left individuals without sufficient support to operate within the legal system. However, it is important to consider that despite financial constraint, law firms have attempted to develop a systematic scheme through uses of technology in response to a reduction in costs. But, this still does not adequately substitute legal advice from an experience and qualified legal professional. This implies a lack of legal resources to pursue justice, therefore u fails provision to justice for all, and further excludes the underprivileged.
Furthermore, due to legal aid cuts, the underprivileged are vulnerable to third party litigation funding. Even though they do provide alternative funding, which assist with the costs of litigation. Third party litigation funding, initially prioritise potential financial earnings of a case. **In most cases, clients are unable to recover costs. *** Therefore, this Only concerned with the value of cases, leaves the underprivileged a victim to
It is sustained that it is mandate that the litigant has a right to fair trial, with access to the present their case before the court. Therefore, to reject an individual’s right to legal aid is essentially a breach of this. Legal aid cuts effects were not only costly, but also established a limit of those of which who were now entitled to the support of legal aid. Legal aid cuts have had an impact on the unlawful discrimination of marginalized groups within the legal system, as a result of this. For instance, the residence test which had penalised minorities, proposing that only those lawfully residents in the UK are entitled to civil legal aid. This was held to be unlawfully discriminatory (R v Lord Chancellor, 2016) *** it is held that those subjected to English law are entitled to equal protection of the law, therefore, this is unfair persecution of minorities. This suggests that legal aid cuts have left marginalised groups most vulnerable to such social injustice, which further excludes those to pursue legal …show more content…
Despite the urge that law firms should undertake more free legal cases. However, law firms are unable to afford to take on such demand of free legal work. This has left individuals without sufficient support to operate within the legal system. However, it is important to consider that despite financial constraint, law firms have attempted to develop a systematic scheme through uses of technology in response to a reduction in costs. But, this still does not adequately substitute legal advice from an experience and qualified legal professional. This implies a lack of legal resources to pursue justice, therefore u fails provision to justice for all, and further excludes the underprivileged.
Furthermore, due to legal aid cuts, the underprivileged are vulnerable to third party litigation funding. Even though they do provide alternative funding, which assist with the costs of litigation. Third party litigation funding, initially prioritise potential financial earnings of a case. **In most cases, clients are unable to recover costs. *** Therefore, this Only concerned with the value of cases, leaves the underprivileged a victim to