Q1. “The cuts to legal aid under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and
Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) have resulted in
negative consequences for access to justice with the greatest
impact affecting the poorest and most vulnerable sectors of
society.” Explain how LASPO has affected access to justice in
England and Wales and describe which people or groups of persons
have been most affected by cuts to legal aid.
A1. Access to justice is defined as an awareness of the legal system and its
procedures. It includes awareness of rights, entitlements, obligations and
responsibilities. It is the ability to access systems and effectively participate in
the process so that the merits of cases are properly present and understood by
the decision maker. It is regarded as a fundamental part of the rule of law, thus
governments committed to rule of law recognize the significance of providing
access to justice. This access is mainly provided through legal aid; Legal aid
refers to the provision of legal service at public expense. It is an expression of
government commitment to the rule of law, which promises equality before
the law and equal access to justice.
Over the years, the legal aid scheme provided benefits to most of the
population, but by the mid-1990s the cost of legal aid rose to 2 billion pounds.
Even thou gh most of the expenditure was in criminal cases but much of it was
also spent in family disputes, civil cases and appeals. Therefore, the
government since then altered and reduced the scope of the legal system in
relation to civil cases. The most significant alteration was recently in 2013 by
the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishing of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). It
aimed to save money on the justice system budget, thus the government
removed most civil and family disputes and the ones affecting the vulnerable
ones, from the scope of the legal aid. The effects of LASPO were aimed at a
reduction of the justice system budget and to avoid unnecessary litigation in
courts. While it can be argued that these aims have been partially met it is also
believed to have led to devastating consequences, such as around an estimate
of 623,000 people who had been able to attain help through legal aid no longer
qualify for it. Therefore the preposition of the question is debatable as many
reviews and researches have been put forth over the years.
, As the question suggests, the effect of LASPO has been massive on the most
poor and vulnerable ones in the society as it mainly disqualifies those from
legal aid who were people with common everyday legal problems such as debt,
issues with the benefits system, poor treatment by employers or experiencing
family breakdowns and related difficulties. It can be proposed that LASPO
mainly intended for two outcomes; the first outcome being that people will
not enforce their rights or pursue remedies or entitlements. They will simply
live with the consequences as they won’t have access to legal aid. As Genn’s
article (1999) presents that the significant proportion of the population faced
with everyday civil justice problems and disputes either do nothing or abandon
attempts to seek remedy. Those with low incomes are similarly unlikely to take
action to defend their rights which thus leads to feelings of helplessness and
resentment. Therefore, with LASPO further making the criteria for legal aid
strict may just result in dissatisfaction and stress, leading to health problems,
which indicates that the money saved from legal aid is then being spent on
health facilities. This is mainly affecting the vulnerable ones in the society as
they are the ones unable to afford access to justice without legal aid. The
second outcome is that those people who wish to pursue their legal rights in
courts will have to do without legal advice and representation unless they pay
for it themselves. This often results in litigants in persons(lips); those who
represent themselves in court. This is once again targeted to exclude the poor
ones in the society who may lack legal knowledge or basic education for the
understanding and comprehension of the law; hence in agreement with the
question that LASPO mainly affects the most vulnerable ones in society.
Similarly the increase in lips results in a waste of resources due to the delay
and the inexperience of litigants in person. Hence, the aim of LASPO to save
money and to become more efficient is not met.
Along with this, according to the Low Commission Report 2012,published
before the implementation of LASPO highlighted that the people who will
suffer the most by this Act are the impoverished in the society such as, a young
couple unable to her their landlord to carry out essential repairs, a nurse who
has worked in National Health Service (NHS) for 20 years and cannot rent a
new house because her immigration status has not been regularized, a person
in debt has started suffering from extreme anxiety and depression as he is
danger of losing his house and job, a person who has been unfairly dismissed, a
Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) have resulted in
negative consequences for access to justice with the greatest
impact affecting the poorest and most vulnerable sectors of
society.” Explain how LASPO has affected access to justice in
England and Wales and describe which people or groups of persons
have been most affected by cuts to legal aid.
A1. Access to justice is defined as an awareness of the legal system and its
procedures. It includes awareness of rights, entitlements, obligations and
responsibilities. It is the ability to access systems and effectively participate in
the process so that the merits of cases are properly present and understood by
the decision maker. It is regarded as a fundamental part of the rule of law, thus
governments committed to rule of law recognize the significance of providing
access to justice. This access is mainly provided through legal aid; Legal aid
refers to the provision of legal service at public expense. It is an expression of
government commitment to the rule of law, which promises equality before
the law and equal access to justice.
Over the years, the legal aid scheme provided benefits to most of the
population, but by the mid-1990s the cost of legal aid rose to 2 billion pounds.
Even thou gh most of the expenditure was in criminal cases but much of it was
also spent in family disputes, civil cases and appeals. Therefore, the
government since then altered and reduced the scope of the legal system in
relation to civil cases. The most significant alteration was recently in 2013 by
the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishing of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). It
aimed to save money on the justice system budget, thus the government
removed most civil and family disputes and the ones affecting the vulnerable
ones, from the scope of the legal aid. The effects of LASPO were aimed at a
reduction of the justice system budget and to avoid unnecessary litigation in
courts. While it can be argued that these aims have been partially met it is also
believed to have led to devastating consequences, such as around an estimate
of 623,000 people who had been able to attain help through legal aid no longer
qualify for it. Therefore the preposition of the question is debatable as many
reviews and researches have been put forth over the years.
, As the question suggests, the effect of LASPO has been massive on the most
poor and vulnerable ones in the society as it mainly disqualifies those from
legal aid who were people with common everyday legal problems such as debt,
issues with the benefits system, poor treatment by employers or experiencing
family breakdowns and related difficulties. It can be proposed that LASPO
mainly intended for two outcomes; the first outcome being that people will
not enforce their rights or pursue remedies or entitlements. They will simply
live with the consequences as they won’t have access to legal aid. As Genn’s
article (1999) presents that the significant proportion of the population faced
with everyday civil justice problems and disputes either do nothing or abandon
attempts to seek remedy. Those with low incomes are similarly unlikely to take
action to defend their rights which thus leads to feelings of helplessness and
resentment. Therefore, with LASPO further making the criteria for legal aid
strict may just result in dissatisfaction and stress, leading to health problems,
which indicates that the money saved from legal aid is then being spent on
health facilities. This is mainly affecting the vulnerable ones in the society as
they are the ones unable to afford access to justice without legal aid. The
second outcome is that those people who wish to pursue their legal rights in
courts will have to do without legal advice and representation unless they pay
for it themselves. This often results in litigants in persons(lips); those who
represent themselves in court. This is once again targeted to exclude the poor
ones in the society who may lack legal knowledge or basic education for the
understanding and comprehension of the law; hence in agreement with the
question that LASPO mainly affects the most vulnerable ones in society.
Similarly the increase in lips results in a waste of resources due to the delay
and the inexperience of litigants in person. Hence, the aim of LASPO to save
money and to become more efficient is not met.
Along with this, according to the Low Commission Report 2012,published
before the implementation of LASPO highlighted that the people who will
suffer the most by this Act are the impoverished in the society such as, a young
couple unable to her their landlord to carry out essential repairs, a nurse who
has worked in National Health Service (NHS) for 20 years and cannot rent a
new house because her immigration status has not been regularized, a person
in debt has started suffering from extreme anxiety and depression as he is
danger of losing his house and job, a person who has been unfairly dismissed, a
