Q) “The Legal Aid and Sentencing Act (LASPO) has radically changes the meaning of Legal Aid and

many areas of civil law are now outside the scope of legal aid”. Describe the changes introduced by
LASPO and the effects this had on the Civil Justice System (CJS). [25 m]

We agree with the fore mentioned the statement that LASPO has drastically changed the significance of
legal aid. LASPO has narrowed the scope and financial eligibility which consequently has hindered
access to legal aid and representation. The effects of LASPO on CJS in view of different authorities and
how the enactment of LASPO has increased the use of Litigants in Person (LIPs) will be discussed below.

The civil justice system is the means provided by the state for citizens and businesses to peacefully
resolve legal disputes and enforce their rights. The scope of CJS is very broad and complex hence the
range of people who access justice through the CJS is enormously diverse and varied. Therefore it is
essential to have a well functioning CJS which according the World Justice Project should have all the
factors i.e. are accessible, affordable, effective, and impartial and have cultural competence and as per
Lord Bingham it should uphold the rule of law.

Legal aid was established in England and Wales at the end of World War II after the enactment of the
Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949 to increase access to justice. It rapidly developed into one of the most
comprehensive schemes in the world providing pecuniary legal aid and representation in most civil and
criminal cases up to the Supreme Court. It expanded up until mid 1980s, but despite being so popular it
fell into steady decline when its budget reached up to 2 billion pounds in 1990s.

To save money on the justice system budget the government introduced the Legal Aid and Sentencing
Act (LASPO) in 2012. The enactment of LASPO led to budget cuts up to 60% which was a very dramatic
change in legal aid. As a result, people involved in everyday legal problems and disputes who were
previously helped through the legal aid system were now unable to access its assistance.

The enactment of LASPO supervened in cutting back of services and closure of advice centers. Due to
this citizens greatly suffered from mental health problems such as depression, anxiety and stress and were
at risk that they may take “crime in their own hands” which would further disrupt the society.
Furthermore, people who may be able to afford court fees may not be able to afford legal representation
and advice (lawyers). This led to the increase in Litigants in Person (LIPs), where people represented
themselves in courts. The augmented use of LIPs significantly increases the burden of courts, as stated by
Lady Justice Black in the case of Re R, because common people had difficulty understanding the law,
rules and procedures and collecting evidence. The reports submitted by the National Audit Committee
and the Judicial Working Group also avouched for the negative effects of LASPO i.e. it had many aims
but the only aim achieved was saving government’s expenditure .Therefore it can be said that LASPO not
only failed in accomplishing most of its aims but in addition to it, it ultimately also increased the burden
of courts, made the society dysfunctional by hindering peoples’ right and access to justice hence giving
individuals mental health problems and by increasing the risk of crime.

In view of the courts as stated by Sir John Laws in the case of Witham, every citizen has a constitutional
and fundamental right to courts, this statement was further affirmed in the case of Daley that the factors
for an effective justice system were not met and were being obstructed. However the government was
satisfied with the effects of LASPO, stating that providing legal aid in not a prerequisite in civil cases.
According to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) restrict the right to legal aid in civil cases is
not a violation of Human Rights and as per Article 6 of the Human Rights Act providing legal aid is only
a prerequisite in criminal cases. The government’s view was accredited in ECtHR in the case of Airey v.
Ireland where the claimant was denied access to justice because she did not have legal representation.

In light of the above arguments it can be concluded that LASPO completely changed the horizon and
concept of legal aid as it was a broad programmed of providing justice, however due to LASPO the rights
of citizens were trammeled. LASPO had failed to meet the majority of its key objectives and that it had
had the effect of harming access to justice as the government had failed to anticipate the impact of the
reforms because it did not carry out sufficient research before implementing them.