Associate Michelmores LLP

Aspiration or commitment?

Aspiration or commitment?

The government’s legal support grant for litigants in person does not fulfil on its commitments, as Pippa Allsop explains

In spring 2020, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) launched its new £3.1m legal support grant for litigants in person (LIPs).

The grant was described as a key milestone in the MoJ’s legal action plan, which was published in February 2019 following its post-implementation review of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO).

The funding will be spread over a period of two years, delivered in partnership with the Access to Justice Foundation; and will be awarded directly to selected individual organisations providing LIPs with support services through our legal system.

The legal action plan identified that “the ability of individuals to resolve their legal problems is vital to a just society and is a fundamental principle underpinning the rule of law”; and acknowledged that legal aid plays an important role in achieving this.

However, the MoJ concluded that the “efficient and accessible provision of legal aid… is only one part of the picture” and sought to extol the benefits of “a range of complimentary legal support” as an alternative to extending the availability of legal aid support to those in need.

There is no doubt that in the last decade there has been a marked increase in the numbers of people considering opting to ‘do it themselves’ in terms of legal processes where possible.

In some areas, the government’s streamlining of services – for example, the online divorce offering – has helped those people easily undertake what may have previously appeared to be a costly process navigable only by solicitors.

Such user-focused initiatives are a positive development.

This positive, however, should not distract from the real reason behind the rise of LIPs in recent years, which is necessity.

For years, lawyers have witnessed first hand the devastating impact of the introduction of LASPO.

In family law, there is no question that a two-tier legal system has been created, where a chasm divides those who can afford legal support and those who can’t.

There are obvious and serious ramifications for the numerous individuals in the latter category.

In addition to the critical and immediate problem of the lack of access to justice, the rise in the number of LIPs has had a knock-on effect on our already overburdened courts.

Putting deliberately vexatious LIPs aside, even the most well-meaning LIPs require greater judicial guidance and case management, causing further cost and delay.

In January 2016, a research briefing paper published by the House of Commons categorically concluded that in introducing LASPO, the MoJ had “failed to meet three out of its four stated objectives for the reforms and, while making significant savings, had damaged access to justice for some litigants”.

While the word ‘some’ may sound synonymous with ‘few’, those on the ground know this is simply not the case.

Three years on, the legal action plan insisted that the government is “committed to protecting and ensuring access to justice”.

While that is undeniably a fine aspiration, many in the legal sphere would quite understandably maintain they have continually failed to deliver.

Sadly, it is not difficult to decipher the clear subtext to government’s stated aim in the legal action plan of exploring “different and innovative ways of supporting people”.

In terms of restoring access to legal aid and, therefore, true access to justice, it’s obvious there is still no intention to return to the way things once were.

Pippa Allsop is an associate at Michelmores

Latest News

The Chancery Lane Project expands to the USA

Thu Sep 21 2023

Delay in Final Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry

Thu Sep 21 2023

Attorney General presents UK intervention in Ukraine case against Russia at International Court of Justice

Thu Sep 21 2023

Firms losing potential clients by failing to return their calls, research shows

Thu Sep 21 2023

Powers of attorney modernised as legislation allows CILEX Lawyers to certify LPA copies for the first time

Thu Sep 21 2023

Stark contrast between Government response to Post Office Horizon victims and Infected Blood

Wed Sep 20 2023

ACSO comments on the Justice select Committee report:

Wed Sep 20 2023

Campaigners win permission to appeal against Sizewell C Nuclear Power Station ruling

Tue Sep 19 2023

Pre-inquest review into the deaths of Reading murder victims, James Furlong, Dr David Wails and Joseph Ritchie-Bennett

Mon Sep 18 2023
FeaturedAudit reform: if not now, when?
Audit reform: if not now, when?
Browne Jacobson collaborates with LGiU on report highlighting “critical” role of local government to hit net zero
Browne Jacobson collaborates with LGiU on report highlighting “critical” role of local government to hit net zero
The battle for talent – promoting diversity
The battle for talent – promoting diversity
BSB publishes new guidance on barristers’ conduct in non-professional life and on social mediaSJ interview: Adrian Chopin
SJ interview: Adrian Chopin
Whose human rights are more important, yours or mine?
Whose human rights are more important, yours or mine?