When the government announced that victims of domestic violence would need to provide courts with certain types of evidence  before being able to apply for legal aid, there was understandable concern and criticism towards the move.

Domestic violence as a phenomenon is largely invisible because many victims are too frightened to seek the medical or emotional help they need, which makes gathering evidence often impossible. Concerns deepened when it became apparent that the restrictions on legal aid access were placing even more women and children in danger. 

The result was a challenge by Rights of Women and The Public Law Project in 2014, which accused the government of restricting access to justice by forcing victims to produce specific documents showing harm. Regulation 33, which sets out the kinds of evidence victims of domestic violence have to produce in order to get legal aid, was shutting out people in need.

Then, in February 2016, the Court of Appeal ruled that Regulation 33 was unlawful.

As a result the government is now carrying out a review of the current evidence requirements for domestic violence in private family law cases and they would like to hear your thoughts.

The survey is open to everyone, and closes on Friday 1st July, 2016. Please take the time to fill it out and pass it on to anyone else you feel might like to contribute, if you can, from victims of domestic violence, to charities, lawyers, judges and anyone else interested in legal aid and Access To Justice matters.

We’ve added some useful links below:

• Law Gazette Article About The Review
• The Survey
• Domestic Violence Evidence Requirements – Update, April 2016 (In Response To the Rights Of Women case)
• What The Update Means And How It Changes The Current Requirements
• Legal Aid For Family Law Matters 
• Current Accepted Forms Of Evidence If You Have Been A Victim Of Domestic Violence
• Legal Aid If Your Child Is At Risk Of Abuse

Setting aside for a moment the fact that Legal Aid is hardly accessible these days, to anyone, it’s been a good day in court for the support service, as judges overturned a government plan to restrict access to it further by imposing a residency test on people in need of legal support.

The residency test would have prevented people from accessing legal aid if they had not lived in the UK continuously for 12 months and could have affected newly arrived migrants and their children. The test, backed by Justice Secretary Michael Gove, was summarily thrown out in a unanimous Supreme Court ruling and unusually, the ruling itself was delivered only minutes after recess yesterday.

The Supreme Court took the view that the government would be acting ‘ultra vires’, or beyond its own powers if it decided to proceed with the residence test. However, the government could push ahead and try to enforce the policy by presenting a Bill to parliament with the measures, in full.

So, whilst the battle to save what’s left of legal aid is not over, the ruling represents an important stand against the erosion of civil justice and human rights in the UK.

Watch this space.

In what will be a fascinating hearing, a new case raises important questions relating to accessing legal aid for abuse of power claims against the police. In an already fraught economy, with a government hell bent on cutting welfare budgets and legal aid down to its last wick, this case, at its heart, is all about economics.

The facts of the case are as follows: Ms Sisangia wished to bring proceedings against the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis for false imprisonment and assault arising out of her arrest and detention in 2011. Her request was refused twice, and on the second occasion, on the ground that she had not shown the proposed action was within the scope of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (“LASPO”) and in particular paragraph 21 of Schedule 1 to that Act.

Ms Sisangia’s claim to pursue legal aid was eventually allowed, but concerns about the wider implications of allowing people to claim for legal aid in this context were raised, and so an appeal was brought by Matthew Coats, the Director of Legal Aid Casework (who initially refused Ms Sisangia’s request to access legal aid).

This appeal has been allowed, though we do not yet know the date of the hearing. It will be interesting to see which points will be raised in relation to The Director’s concerns, but we feel this appeal is driven by concerns over whether permission to access legal aid for cases involving false imprisonment and the police may open a floodgate, which the government, and The Director of Legal Aid Casework, will be keen to avoid. This case is relevant to the family justice system because the police work closely with social workers and families involved in the court system and there are potentially instances where police conduct, particularly with vulnerable families, could be construed as abuses of power.

What do you think? Is this appeal motivated by money, or have we missed a finer point?

If you have a moment, the discussion in the judgment on the definition of abuse of power is worth a read, not least of all because there is no set definition that exists (interesting reasons for that apparent omission are offered in the text).

Many thanks to Maggie Tuttle for sharing this case with us.