The basic scope for the civil justice system in the UK is quite complex and broader

than the scope of criminal justice system. There is a diverse range of claimants and
defendants in the UK which use the civil justice system to resolve disputes over their
legal rights which could not have been resolved through negotiations between them.
The civil justice system of the UK possesses the capacity to adjudicate upon various
areas of law including and not limited to family, administrative, torts, property law etc.
According to Hazel Genn, the civil justice system caters to a rag-bag of issues and
participants which include businesses suing businesses, individuals suing business
and businesses suing individuals. It involves judicial reviews, immigration, housing,
child welfare, matrimonial and mental health issues as well. The courts in the United
Kingdom are the backbone for the civil justice system to operate. These courts have
the ability to determine the disputes according to the application of common law
and/or the relevant Statue. The system also offers a range of dispute resolution
methods and procedures which are used by the individuals and business to act as
an alternative to the formal court proceedings which may offer confidentiality to the
individuals regarding the outcome of their dispute.
The civil justice system of the UK recognizes the underlying idea for legal aid and
access to justice in civil matters. Individuals exercise various rights and obligations
towards each other in a modern progressive democracy, but they would be of little
value to the individuals if they are ignorant of their rights or are unable to use those
rights before the competent jurisdiction. UK is committed towards the constructional
pillar of the rule of law, which urges the social security of the people of the UK to
acknowledge the necessary provision of help for those individuals which seek to
invoke the competent jurisdiction to adjudicate upon their rights and obligations but
do not have the money or capacity to seek legal advice. This provision of legal
service is at the expense of the government and therefore the State recognizes this
difficulty faced by the individuals which forms as an expression of commitment
towards the constitutional fundamental of Rule of Law since it ensures equality of
individuals before the law by the State.
The Legal Aid System of the United Kingdom dates back to the end of World War 2
when the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949 was passed which was designed to provide
legal aid to those people who had slender means and resources to ensure that every
individual can invoke the jurisdiction of the court. The legal aid system of UK was
one of the best systems in the world between 1949 until 1980’s. In the 1980’s, the
system had the capacity to cover advice and representation to civil and criminal
cases ranging from lower courts to the House of Lords in which the individuals could
claim help from the private sector as well.
In the 1990’s, the cost of the legal aid system had reached 2 billion pounds where
most of the budget was reserved for criminal cases while the rest of it was dedicated
to civil disputes, family law cases and reviews against the decisions made by the
government. Since then, successive governments had reduced the resources
required to manage all kinds of civil disputes, the scope of civil and family disputes
had been diminished. In April 2013, the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of
Offenders Act 2012 was passed. This Act required the government to remove the
resolution of most of the civil and family law cases from the legal aid scheme. Almost
623,000 individuals every year were involved in legal problems who could not claim
the legal aid scheme which they had access to previously.
The LASPO 2012 had severely affected the functioning of the providers who were
engaged in providing with legal advice and representation especially the Non-profit
agencies and practitioners. It led to cancellation of these services and abolished the
advice centers. In cutting down the services, the consequences were severe and
most of the people would not even attempt to enforce their rights and would simply
live with the consequences which any adverse orders would bring into. It led to a
situation where those people who wished to pursue the rights would pursue them
without any legal representation unless they pay for those services.
Under Part 1 of the LASPO 2012, the legal assistance for private law cases was
expressly abolished and were only limited to the exceptional cases. Under Article 6
of the ECHR, everyone is entitled to a fair trial, and thus the cuts by the LASPO 2012
may infringe this convention right. In Re T(Children), a mother of child with nominal
income was not eligible for legal aid and getting so would lead the claimant into
debts. The Supreme Court had raised Article 6 of the ECHR and required the need
to guarantee individual’s right of fair trial. On the contrary, the ECHR requires that
access to justice would be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of fair trial
notwithstanding whether it was provided in the case at hand or not. The existence of
the system would be sufficient to comply with Article 6. In the case of Airey vs
Ireland, the factors which are responsible for the finding of a breach of Article 6
includes firstly, the complexity of the case, secondly the need to present evidences
and examination of the witnesses and thirdly, the capacity of the person. If a person
does not require legal representation under this criterion, then there would be no
infringement of Article 6 of the ECHR. In the case of Kinderis vs Kineriene, the court
had granted adjournment to the claimant since the dispute was regarding child
abduction and the litigant in person did not have the sufficient knowledge to proceed
the case. The judge sought the claimant to get legal aid otherwise, the proceedings
would go onto infringe Article 6 of the ECHR. In Re L (Application hearing: Legal
Representation), the court held that it would be a violation of Article 6 if a parent with
mental disorder history would be sought to represent himself. In RP and others vs
UK, it was held that Article 6 was violated when legal representation was denied to a
mother who was suffering from leaning difficulties.
The parliament before enacting LASPO 2012 had intended that the objective of the
government was to discourage the use of unnecessary litigation and promote the
acceptance of mediation. According to the statistics, the opposite had happened in
the recent past which had burdened the expenditures even more dreadfully. In the
case of Re R (Care Proceedings: Welfare analysis of Changed circumstances),
Black LJ had held that by the rise of litigants in person, more and more people are
appearing before the courts which had caused substantial burden in terms of
workload. Litigants in person have shown to cause themselves harm or have
damaged their cause by not putting their cases properly. One example can be seen
in the case of Re W (A Child), the court had granted the custody of a child who had
been abused by his grandfather, to his father because the mother of the child was
held to be too obsessed with previous child abuse of her children. One might wonder
that if the mother had representation, she might not have been vulnerable due to the
heightened emotions towards her child.
The current system of Legal aid in the United Kingdom had demerited and requires a
re-evaluation process of the eligibility criteria to whom the legal aid would be granted
to. The parliament must include the disputes regarding private law within the scope
of the legal aid system. The system of mediation is required to be closely monitored
and reformed in order to encourage it and meet the objectives which the parliament
had intended before the enactment of LASPO 2012.