|
Comments
on the Discussion Document
In
making our comments we draw on the knowledge and experience from
bureaux’ client contact and the fact that Citizens Advice Bureaux
deal with, on average, over 78,000 justice and court-related enquiries
annually, including an average of 33,000 enquiries involving free
legal advice, or referral to a free legal provider (e.g. a lawyer
or community law centre). Between 1994/95 and 2001/02 client enquiries
involving free legal advice and referrals increased by 42% (from
22,733 to 32,261). Total justice and court-related enquiries increased
69% in the same period (48,860 to 82,313).
While
we understand that this review does not examine the provision of
legal information and advice in the broader sense we would like
to note that this is an important issue. Our client enquiry statistics,
cited above, demonstrate a massive increase in justice-related enquiries,
including the increased demand for legal advice, especially free
legal advice. We suggest that these increased enquiries point to
important issues around peoples’ access to justice and peoples’
increasing need for accessible legal assistance. Because of this
trend we would strongly recommend that the Ministry of Justice widen
its review of legal aid to examine the provision of legal information
and advice.
We
do not consider that the discussion document fully canvassed, nor
provided adequate detail and analysis of the options. Our submission
therefore makes only general comment on four issues: merits tests,
financial eligibility, contributions & charges and monitoring
of the scheme.
We
also endorse the comments made in the Wellington Community Law Centre’s
submission.
Merits
tests
Merits
tests for criminal legal aid
The
discussion document only briefly discusses the three options, and
then recommends that each option be explored further. We do not
consider that the discussion document provided adequate information
or analysis on each option, and therefore we would like to see more
detail following further exploration of the options before we make
comment. At face value we consider that the “reasonable prospect
of acquittal” and the “placing conditions on the grant
of legal aid” puts the Legal Services Agency in the conflicting
position of being the funder as well as making legal judgements
prior to a trial. In that case, we would not support those options.
Merits
tests for civil legal aid
As
with the criminal legal aid merits tests, we consider that the discussion
document has not adequately canvassed the options, nor provided
sufficient detail and analysis for us to make informed comments.
That
said, we do agree with removing the merits tests for those proceedings
listed in the document (i.e. people facing compulsory mental health
assessment and treatment, people claiming refugee status, and domestic
violence orders).
In
regard to making mediation a prerequisite to the granting of legal
aid, we are generally in favour of mediation and alternative dispute
resolution models. However, we would wish to see more analysis of
this option before we make further comment. Again, this option has
not been fully explored in the discussion document; for example,
the disadvantages of this option were discussed only through five
bullet points, which does not provide enough information for us
to either accept or reject the option.
Financial
eligibility
As
noted in our introductory comments, Citizens Advice Bureaux are
increasing dealing with enquiries from people seeking low-cost or
free legal advice and assistance. We consider that this demand is
indicative of broader needs in the community for accessible and
free legal assistance, and that there are many people who need to
access the justice system but are unable to because of cost, and
who are not eligible for legal aid because of the financial eligibility
criteria.
We
therefore would generally support any option that changes these
criteria to increase peoples’ eligibility for legal aid. We
would also support the option that links the financial criteria
to the cost of living.
Contributions
& charges
In
reference to removing the sheltering of costs from recipients of
legal aid. We would not support any option that would see the Legal
Services Agency place debt burden and therefore increased hardship
on a legally aided person. A legally aided person has already proved
their inability to pay for legal services, and would therefore be
unlikely to pay for any debt related to court costs.
Monitoring
of the legal aid scheme
The
discussion document highlighted the lack of detailed information,
monitoring, analysis and evaluation of current legal aid eligibility.
We would strongly recommend that monitoring and analysis of the
scheme be improved, including an analysis of rejected applications,
demographics of applicants, and so on.
|
![To see what social issues we are currently working on [through advocacy and media]](../../images/socialp.GIF){kind=small}
