Disappointment as High Court Rejects Challenge to Legal Aid Restrictions

On 22^nd January 2015 the High Court ruled in favour of the Government in a judicial review of the rules on legal aid entitlement for victims of domestic abuse. The challenge focussed on whether the evidence of domestic violence required to obtain legal aid in family cases is so inflexible and difficult that it actually excludes genuine victims of domestic abuse from receiving legal aid.

The action was brought by the Public Law Project on behalf of the domestic abuse support organisation Rights of Women with backing from the Law Society.

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) brought the domestic violence evidence requirements into law on 1^st April 2013; this drastically reduced entitlement to family legal aid for the majority but was meant to provide protection for victims of domestic violence.

The evidence requirements for legal aid are very prescriptive; in almost all cases the evidence must not be more than 24 months old. Examples of such evidence are: a letter or report from social services, a police caution, a court injunction, a letter from a refuge and a letter from a health professional.

The Legal Aid Agency rules set out what must be included in the evidence and an application will be rejected if every single requirement is not fulfilled. If, for example, the letter from a health professional does not include an NHS number the application for legal aid will be refused.

Rights of Women argued that if the evidence requirements “thwart or frustrate the statutory purpose [..] It impairs the right of access to legal advice and the courts in family proceedings by women (and their children) who have suffered physical and/or psychological harm as a result of domestic violence.”

The Court accepted that many victims of domestic abuse may be excluded from receiving legal aid as more than 24 months have passed since the relationship breakdown. However, the Court said that this is a matter for the Government and ultimately Parliament to address.

It is not yet clear whether this decision will be appealed.