As we further dig into the system of law in the UK it is vital that we discuss the role of legal aid and

its
recognition through the Legal Aid and Advice Act. Furthermore, we will also be stating how the use of
legal aid led to the introduction of Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO) and
also triggered consequences for legal aid providers as well as the general public. All and all based on the
views of the judiciary, European Courts of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the government, we will determine
whether LASPO is here to stay or not.

When it comes to accessing justice the role of the Civil Justice System (CJS) is widely known. It is a
comprehensive system designed to provide private individuals a platform to settle their disputes via
effective interventions. However, it is on the government to rise to the occasion and ensure that every
citizen and business in question is provided an equal opportunity. Before we dig deeper it is important
to understand what accessing entails. It is when businesses and individuals have a sense of awareness
about their rights and duties and the course of action they must follow to get access to these rights and
duties this is where the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949 comes in.

It is one of the pioneers of enlightenment among people when it comes to accessing justice, in fact it has
been of great help for those that struggle to secure finances and representation in court. In simple terms
legal aid is financial aid given by government to its ordinary citizens but by using the same money they
charge them for taxation. It was not until the mid-1980s where the system expanded throughout the
world and started covering courts from lower ones to the supreme ones. Even though a vast percentage
of funds allotted for legal aid was being used for criminal cases, civil cases and were also receiving
decent coverage under it. After that mainly in mid-1990s the budget for legal aid in UK almost increased
to 2 billion pounds. A very large portion of this amount was being spend on criminal as well as civil cases
particularly on family dispute cases that were raised in the courts.

Then, in 2012 when LASPO was introduced it changed the entire legal aid atmosphere of the UK. The
biggest downside of this act was that over 623000 individuals lost their right to be heard in court as the
government downsized the budget for civil and family side cases. Not only did several advice centers
have to close down, a huge chunk of the population lost their access to justice when it came to their
problems related to family disputes, employment disputes and debt issues. Hence, we can already see
the detrimental effects LASPO has unleashed on the society. Here are some more consequences we can
expect in the future. First, a rise in mental health conditions among individuals owing to their lost sense
of legal rights and difficulties accessing CJS. Moreover, greater injustice as people may be able to afford
legal fees but not litigation fees. Last but not least, an increase in crime rate as the deprived faction of
the society may decide to take the law in their hands.

However, we must not overlook the benefits of LASPO which may not directly be related to it but can
still end up benefitting the society. By saving up on the money the government previously spent on aid
they can invest it on other departments like education medication etc. However, since the whole debate
is pretty controversial the ECtHR, government of UK and UK courts have shared their point of view and
stated the following. While the government accepts every individual rights to seek justice it also strives
to establish the difference between receiving legal aid and accessing justice. The government also made
it clear that the question was rather about whether a person should receive legal aid or not. Secondly in
the famous AIREY v. IRELAND case it also became apparent that claimant did not require any aid from
the state which further strengthen the courts point of view that assistance must be limited to cases of
criminal nature as guaranteed under Article 6 of Human Rights Act 1998.

Furthermore, there are several other ways through which a state can help its citizens to get access to
justice. For instance, one way is to simplify court procedures. On the other hand, according to common
law’s point of view accessing legal aid is a fundamental right and also a pre requisite for access to
justice. We can also see in case of WITHAM where Sir John laws declared that the common law places
special emphasis on the citizens rights of access to the courts. This same statement was also assisted by
the Supreme Courts stance in the case of R UNISON v LORD CHANCELLOR. Then in the R (DALY) v.
SECRETARY FOR HOME DEPARTMENT case Lord Bingham also established the three rights for effective
access to justice including the right to access courts, legal advice, and communication with a legal
advisor. Since judiciary majorly comes under the government it is bound to follow any act passed by the
parliament
However, LASPO has undergone its fear share of criticism by public authorities as well as legal
professionals for instance the Justice Committee of House of Commons in 2013 concluded that the
government didn’t do adequate research and hence failed to meet the basic objectives of legal aid
reforms. It further stated that it was due to the governments severe budget cuts that civil legal aid
became a luxury for many. The only thing it ended up achieving was more savings in the government’s
fund. It further increased the practice of litigation and decreased mediation, doing quite the opposite of
what the government had initially planned keeping the argument we just stated in mind it is safe to
conclude that LASPO did in fact end up becoming a hurdle in seeking justice, especially for the deprived
faction of the society. Moreover, the reforms brought about by LASPO also undermined the rule of law
and exposed the government’s ineffectiveness and lack of understanding.

recent development and Litigants in person