As justices of the supreme court express fears that legal aid cuts will cause a courts logjam, a Manifesto for Family Justice has been published by an alliance of organisations which represents the rights and needs of women, children, families and victims of domestic abuse.

In a special report on the workings of the supreme court, the ‘Guardian’ outlined the concerns of some of the justices. Lord Hope, deputy president of the supreme court, said that as a product of the absence of legal aid the court of appeal is being deluged by litigants in person, which creates a logjam in itself. Lord Dyson, another supreme court judge, said he was very worried about access to justice for those who wanted to take judicial reviews or challenge tribunals. He added: “There are some very good litigants in person but there are an awful lot who, understandably, don’t know what they are doing. They feel frustrated, angry. They are not lawyers. They take masses of bad points. They waste a lot of the court’s time. And it’s a growing trend.” Lord Mance said that he couldn’t comment on the particular governmental policy, but added: “One way or other, we have to take very seriously the question of access to justice.” Lady Hale, the only woman justice in the supreme court, said that the judges worry about the extent to which denying people access to legal representation and legal advice will “change radically the role of the court in seeking to do justice.”
In its manifesto, sent to all MPs, the alliance of organisations has called upon the Government to protect vulnerable women and children; to listen to the experienced practitioners who work in family justice and who understand that mediation will not resolve a significant number of cases; and to consider with care whether the decision to remove legal aid from private family law cases will save the Government money or, in fact, cost more and lead to poor outcomes.

The chairman of the Family Law Bar Association, Stephen Cobb QC, said: “We have come together as a broad cross section of organisations deeply concerned by the consequences of the government’s proposals. The civil legal aid cuts will be bad for children, bad for women and bad for families. We are facing a disturbing new landscape in which 600,000 people will no longer receive legal aid, 68,000 children will be affected by the removal of legal aid in family cases, 54,000 fewer people will be represented in the family courts annually and 75% of existing private family law cases will no longer attract legal aid. We face the very real prospect that many children and women who have been victims of domestic abuse will have to endure the further trauma of being cross-examined by their alleged perpetrator, who will not be eligible for legal aid.”
The manifesto criticises the narrow definition of domestic abuse used in the bill, which will limit legal aid to victims of certain types of abuse. Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said women and children were “bearing the brunt of this government’s actions.” She added: “Denying victims of domestic violence legal support, or increasingly making victims endure cross-examination by their assailants, will remove the vital protection many vulnerable women depend upon.”

The alliance comprises the Association of Lawyers for Children, the Bar Council, Co-ordinated Action Against Domestic Abuse, the Children’s Commissioner, the Family Law Bar Association, Gingerbread, Liberty, the National Federation of Women’s Institutes, Resolution and Women’s Aid.

The legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders bill, which will save £350m a year from the legal aid budget, has completed its committee stage in the Commons and will be debated on the floor of the house next week.

Ken Clarke’s Ministry of Justice faces a legal challenge over its controversial plan to
scrap legal aid for victims of clinical negligence. The charity Action against Medical Accidents (AvMA) has issued legal proceedings for a judicial review of the decision.

AvMA Chief Executive Peter Walsh said: “Scrapping legal aid for clinical negligence is completely irrational whatever way you look at it, as well as grossly unfair. Ken Clarke’s department might save a little money, but the cost will simply be heaped on the NHS. Some of the most vulnerable people in society injured by negligent treatment at the hands of a State body will be denied access to justice.”

The Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill may have been steamrollered through the Commons but the action of AvMA is but one instance of continued resistance. The Commons proceedings have become close up and personal. Jonathan Djanogly is the justice minister piloting the plans to cut legal aid and curb payouts, which could benefit the insurance industry to the tune of £1bn a year. The ‘Guardian’ reports that Djanogly has investments worth at least £250,000 in companies with insurance arms, and that his brother in law also stands to gain. Labour’s justice spokesman, Andy Slaughter, has written to cabinet secretary Gus O’Donnell calling for an investigation into Djanogly. Slaughter points to conflict of interest claims given that the minister has neither resigned or removed himself from discussions from which he could personally profit.

The Sound Off for Justice campaign has revealed that the family of Milly Dowler asked the Prime Minister David Cameron and his deputy Nick Clegg to stop the “unjust and unfair” legislation that will significantly weaken the ‘no win no fee’ mechanisms they used to fight their case against News International. Writing an open letter to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, the Dowlers said that they could not have reached a settlement without a ‘no win, no fee’ agreement. Their letter concluded: “We are sure that you do not want to go down in history as the prime minister who took rights away from ordinary people so that large companies could print whatever they like and break the law without [anyone] being able to challenge them.” Des Hudson, Chief Executive of the Law Society said: “After all they have been through we welcome – and are humbled by – the intervention of the Dowler family in this debate. They have succeeded in making it clear to the Prime Minister that it is ordinary families with terrible life challenges that will be impacted the most. They will be the losers. As a society we need to protect them and their access to justice.”

Dominic Grieve, the attorney general, has entered the arena. He attended a national meeting hosted by the Bar Council and the Family Law Bar Association on 17 September on “The Legal Aid Bill – What is the future for Family Justice.” According to Joshua Rozenberg, writing in the ‘Guardian’, as a result of that meeting Grieve is to tell Ken Clarke that the lord chancellor’s proposals will clog up the courts with unrepresented litigants. Grieve was told that the government’s legal aid reforms would result in 54,000 fewer people a year being represented in the family courts, affecting 68,000 children at the centre of traumatic family breakdown. Rozenberg concludes: “Without lawyers, courts become slower and more expensive. If Grieve can persuade the lord chancellor that his reforms will cost money rather than save it, he will have well served the interests of justice.”

Now the battleground moves to the Lords. According to the ‘Law Gazette’, Liberal Democrat Lord Carlile of Berriew believes there is enough support from all sides to push for changes. He said that there are enough people in the Lords who feel strongly about some of these issues to “fight the good fight”, although he regretted that the Lords may end up scrutinising the bill in more detail than the Commons. His hope is that the House of Lords may yet drive through significant amendments to the legal aid and civil litigation reforms.

At meetings of the Public Bill Committee considering the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill on 6th and 8th September opposition amendments were comprehensively rejected.

Opponents wanted to return the large areas of law that the government has sought to exclude, including welfare benefits, clinical negligence, disability, education and housing law, into the scope of legal aid. Shadow justice minister Andy Slaughter told the Commons committee that the amendments went to the heart of their opposition to the Government’s strategy of restricting legal aid. He said: “Legal aid was devised to allow those who are impecunious and cannot afford access to legal advice to get their cases into court to reach a fair resolution, to be put on a level peg with those who have such resources…The Government’s intention [is] very clear: to be as restrictive as they can possibly get away with being in the provision of social welfare legal aid and to allow exceptions only where they believe it is untenable not to, either for public relations reasons or for reasons of simple morality. Otherwise, they will do their level best to close down those options for legal aid that have grown over time.” 

He went on to say: “We are saying through these amendments that we wish to stay potentially with the status quo. That does not mean things should not be reviewed. On the contrary, the point I am making is that if we want to constantly review what is and is not appropriate, we should not set up a system so restrictive that it will give little justice to anybody who is seeking that in any of the areas currently in scope.”
Justice minister Jonathan Djanogly responded that: “The amendments are contrary to the basis of our whole programme of reform and would increase the cost of legal aid dramatically at a time when we are seeking to focus it on the highest priority cases.” The voting was always close, usually by 11 or 10 to 9, but sufficient to leave the relevant clauses unamended. Any hopes that the two Liberal Democrat members of the committee might be persuaded to vote against the government were dashed.

According to the ‘Law Gazette’, speaking out of committee Andy Slaughter said: “Reading out pre-prepared scripts in response to every amendment and failing to answer questions undermines the ability of the committee to properly scrutinise this legislation and insults lawyers, advisors and volunteers in the sector that are watching us and hoping their voices are heard.” The Parliamentary timetable provides for the third reading of the bill next month before it is passed on for debate in the House of Lords.

Last week the government announced its intention to ban the payment of referral fees in personal injury cases. In their view the current arrangements have led to high costs, encouraged a compensation culture and led to the growth of an industry – estimated elsewhere to be worth £3bn a year – which pursues claimants for profit.

Though the MoJ stress there is no universally recognised definition of ‘referral fees’, their press release gives the following example:

• You have an accident and you are induced through a TV advert or SMS text message to make a ‘no-win, no-fee’ claim.
• Your claim is passed between claims management companies (who advertise compensation claims for accidents), insurance companies, lawyers and others who charge each other a referral fee for ‘referring’ the claim up the line.
• The lawyer sues for compensation. If he wins, he can recover his costs and his “no-win, no-fee” mark-up on his costs from the losing defendant (or often the defendant’s insurance company) which will cover the amount he paid out as a referral fee. So the lawyer may pay hundreds of pounds as a referral fee because he knows he can get the money back.
• To cover the loss, losing insurance companies are forced to raise premiums, private companies are forced to put up prices, and public authorities pass the burden on to the taxpayer.

Justice minister Jonathan Djanogly said: “Honest motorists are seeing their premiums hiked up as insurance companies cover the increasing costs of more and more compensation claims. Many of the claims are spurious and only happen because the current system allows too many people to profit from minor accidents and incidents. People are being encouraged to sue, at no risk to themselves, leaving schools, business and individuals living in fear of being dragged to the courts for simply going about daily life.”

The announcement has been received with almost universal approval by the insurance industry. Shadow justice minister Andy Slaughter said Labour supported the ban, particularly when applied to road accidents. But Neil Rose, writing in legalweek.com, reckoned that the ban was politics not policy, made for show and for headlines. He said: “If ministers really want rid of claims management companies, then ban them, not referral fees. But they know they can’t do that, because these businesses will just become alternative business structures and do the whole case themselves, a move that was likely anyway but that this announcement will surely speed up.”

The justice minister said finding a definition of referral fees was challenging, but he hoped to get the provisions included in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, possibly by Easter next year. The government’s current proposals before Parliament in clause 41 of that bill focus on stopping losing defendants having to pay a ‘success fee’ to reimburse the claimant’s lawyer for unconnected cases he may have lost. In future the person making the claim will have to pay the success fee rather than the defendant, and that fee will be capped. Legal costs overall should fall, meaning lower costs to pass on to customers.

Margaret Thatcher’s priorities for the police were always clear. They were cosseted. Numbers, pay, overtime, the sky seemed to be the limit. Cynics would say that it was insurance for her contentious domestic policies, whether taking on the miners or introducing the poll tax.

David Cameron has been very different. It is almost as if he is determined to be confrontational, with swingeing cuts in budgets and numbers and a pay freeze. There have been critical speeches about police performance, culminating in the unseemly and very public spat about the initial reaction to the recent urban riots. Not to mention the blame game of the phone tapping scandal.

So there was perhaps an element of fence mending in home secretary Theresa May’s hastily arranged speech to police leaders on Tuesday. She went out of her way to praise the police for the handling of the riots. “We owe all police officers a debt of gratitude,” she said. “They risk their own safety day in, day out to protect ours. And I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to our police leaders, who made those changes that led to the restoration of order on our streets. They worked tirelessly in leading their officers through a difficult time, and they deserve much credit for that.” But there was no resiling from the proposed cuts. “ The police are going to have to take their share of the burden. People often say there will be twenty per cent police cuts.  And that’s true”, she said.

The home secretary then dealt with extra powers for the police to deal with any future disturbances. In a key section of her speech she said: “We have already said that we will give the police new powers, including new gang injunctions for young people and the right to remove face coverings, as well as considering new curfew powers.  For example, under existing laws, there is no power to impose a general curfew in a particular area, and while curfew conditions can be placed on some offenders as part of their ASBO, criminal sentence or bail conditions, there are only limited powers to impose them on somebody under the age of sixteen.  Those are the sorts of changes we need to consider. So we will make sure the police have the powers they need.”

Apart from practical implications – can you imagine local curfews in Olympics year? – this approach has met with some opposition. Mairi Clare Rodgers, Director of Media Relations at Liberty, said that more inclusion, fairness and equal treatment before the law, not less, is the only way to build personal and social responsibility. Politicians should listen when police chiefs tell them that new powers – on curfews, dispersals and face-coverings – are unnecessary. “We fail to see how leaning on magistrates to lock up youngsters and evicting entire families – innocent siblings and all – from their homes – is justified. Crude spite is flawed, both in theory and practice, and will lead to more problems than it solves. Shutting down entire phone and social media networks – punishing innocent users and those warning others of violence – is as useless as it is disproportionate”, she said.

Maria Fort, of Big Brother Watch, said that, while individual curfews are acceptable, blanket curfews are more controversial. “It springs images of war-time suppression and martial law on societies.  Even in crises of public order, there is no justification for denying the general public such basic liberties, particularly when the vast majority of the public are law-abiding individuals.”

The full text of the home secretary’s speech can be found at:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/media-centre/speeches/urgent-need-reform

Photo courtesy of nikolaasB’s photostream

When Ryan Giggs and Imogen Thomas embarked on a brief relationship they could not have imagined that it would develop from kiss-and-tell to a legal battle and now into a constitutional crisis.

On 14 April Mr Justice Eady granting a privacy injunction to Ryan Giggs. When Giggs’s anonymity was blown on Twitter, Thomas, now supported by the “Sun” (NGN), headed back into court to challenge the injunction. Mr Justice Eady released a trenchantly-worded judgment, explaining why he had made the initial ruling to keep the identity of the footballer secret, in which he concluded there was “ample reason not to trust” the young woman. The judge noted that evidence before the court “appeared strongly to suggest that the claimant [the anonymous footballer] was being blackmailed.” Eady did not reach a final conclusion on the point but, in refusing the application, he added: “It is important always to remember that the modern law of privacy is not concerned solely with secrets: it is also concerned importantly with intrusion”.

Within the hour John Hemming MP named Giggs in the House of Commons under parliamentary privilege. NGN immediately made a further application for the anonymity of the claimant to be removed on the basis that the name had been repeated thousands of times on the internet. In a brief, three paragraph ruling, Mr Justice Tugendhat refused the application. The third paragraph is worth repeating in full, confirming that privacy expands to cover intrusion and harassment:
“It is obvious that if the purpose of this injunction were to preserve a secret, it would have failed in its purpose. But in so far as its purpose is to prevent intrusion or harassment, it has not failed. The fact that tens of thousands of people have named the claimant on the internet confirms that the claimant and his family need protection from intrusion into their private and family life. The fact that a question has been asked in Parliament seems to me to increase, and not to diminish the strength of his case that he and his family need that protection. The order has not protected the claimant and his family from taunting on the internet. It is still effective to protect them from taunting and other intrusion and harassment in the print media.”

There has been fury in some parliamentary quarters, with indignation that the judiciary was usurping the legislative rights of parliament. Senior legal figures and politicians warned that super-injunctions have been rendered pointless by Twitter and other social networking sites, leaving the law on so-called gagging orders in a “complete mess”. But Eady was doing what parliament had asked the courts to do when it passed the Human Rights Act (HRA), which is to weigh up privacy and freedom of expression as embodied in articles 8 and 10 of the HRA. David Cameron said that Parliament had not provided judges with sufficient guidance, forcing them to rely on legislation from the European Courts. He said: “I think judges are saying, look there is a European Convention of Human Rights which we can use. And because Parliament has not discussed this enough, they feel they are filling a gap…We have such extensive social media and internet access that everything becomes more intense.”

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, weighed into the debate. He said: “Contrary to some commentary, judges in this country did not create privacy rights. They were created by Parliament. Now they have been created, judges cannot ignore them – they must apply the law.” He warned MPs that hiding behind ¬parliamentary privilege was not a clear cut defence for flouting court orders. He admitted that bloggers and users of social networking sites such as Twitter would not necessarily be covered by injunctions. But he added that the internet had “by no means the same degree of intrusion into privacy as the story being emblazoned on the front pages of newspapers”, which “people trust more.” Society should consider other ways to bring Twitter and other internet sites under control. He said: “Anybody can put anything on it, modern technology is totally out of control. I’m not giving up on the possibility that people who peddle lies about others through using technology may one day be brought under control, maybe through damages, very substantial damages, maybe even injunctions to stop them peddling lies.”

Following the publication by the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, of the findings of his committee on injunctions, Attorney General Dominic Grieve announced that a joint committee of peers and MPs would investigate the use of court injunctions to protect privacy. He said it would examine whether the current system was working following recent controversy over super-injunctions.

Photo courtesy of  Edwin. 11 photostream on Flickr

After the battering the Government’s legal aid proposals took in the Commons it was the turn of the Lords to sink their teeth in when the proposals were the subject of a debate last Thursday.

Opening the debate, Lord Beeching pointed out that the Government’s Green Paper on legal aid reform proposes a massive cut in the civil legal aid budget of £279 million, with a much smaller reduction of around £71 million in the criminal legal aid budget. It achieves this by substantially reducing the scope of the scheme across most of the categories currently covered, while several categories are removed entirely. He said that, based on the latest Legal Services Commission data, some 725,000 cases will not be assisted, adding that the impact is concentrated on the poorest. Currently, 80 per cent of legal help cases and 90 per cent of cases where legal representation is funded involve the poorest 20 per cent of the population. As regards alternative sources of support, he said that law centres and Citizens Advice are under extreme financial pressure, both from the withdrawal of government funding implicit in the proposals of the Green Paper and from local councils struggling to cope with the largest ever reduction in government grants. He urged the Government to consider very carefully the Law Society’s proposals for savings which he reckoned could bring a total of £469 million-worth of savings. He quoted the current Lord Chief Justice as saying that the proposals fail “to recognise the depth of the problem,” and “would lead to a huge increase in the incidence of unrepresented litigants, with serious implications for the quality of justice and for the administration of the justice system.”

Baroness Sherlock focused on one particular aspect of the Government’s plans for legal aid, the proposal to take social welfare law out of scope. She said that of the cuts to be made, more than £l00 million will be cut from social welfare legal aid and, as a result, most social welfare law and legal advice will no longer be covered. This is at a time when the Welfare Reform Bill, described as the biggest change to the welfare system for over 60 years, is currently making its way through Parliament. She concluded: “My concern is that when Governments make changes on this scale, mistakes inevitably happen. Given all those changes, does this feel like a good time to stop providing advice and help to benefits claimants in those settings? I think not.” Lord Thomas’s concern was medical negligence, his fear being that the removal of legal aid “will deny access to justice to some of the most vulnerable groups in the country – children, the sick and disabled. The need to streamline costs and for systems to be efficient should not be at their expense.”

Baroness Helena Kennedy drew attention to something Jonathan Djanogly, the justice department Minister in charge of legal aid, said at the Conservative Party conference last year. He said: “Legal aid can be a good filler for those lawyers out of work or women who want to get back into the legal job market after having children.” Baroness Kennedy said: “It shows an attitude to legal aid which is to misunderstand it.” Her concern was also medical negligence cases, saying that “removing legal aid completely will mean that poor people who suffer terrible things within our hospitals will not be able to sue.”

Replying to the lengthy debate, Minister of State Lord McNally said: “We are still in consultation. I cannot say that the consultation is going to produce some Pauline conversion at the last moment. As I say, we have made a commitment to savings and we intend to deliver them.” Then, like Jonathan Djanogly in the Commons earlier, he played a dead bat. A contributor to the BBC’s online commentary while the debate was taking place said: “Poor McNally, poor performance. Mostly today…he’s just reading out word for word the introduction to the Green Paper published last November. Does he know? Pretty disrespectful to the House if he does. Civil servants in MoJ can’t be bothered to write him a speech and he can’t be bothered to check.” Another contributor said: “Only one speaker in favour of the reforms…That sums up the whole debate perfectly. Nobody was interested in seeking to defend what the government is doing, even those on the government benches.”

Picture courtesy of UK Parliament’s photostream

Liberal Democrat MP Dr Julian Huppert secured a debate on legal aid in the Commons last week. He said it was timely because although the Government consultation, which has received around 5,000 replies, has closed no response has been published.

His main concern was the detrimental effect the proposed cuts would have on the disadvantaged. He said that women will be disproportionately affected by the changes in legal aid as they are more often the recipients of it and less often have their own finances in place. Children and young people will also be disproportionately affected, partly because women make up the majority of primary care givers. Similar concerns apply in relation to disabled people, whether young or old, instancing the Government plan to remove legal aid relating to matters of special educational need. He was pleased that asylum will remain within the scope of legal aid, but extremely concerned that other immigration cases have been excluded. He said: “Even under existing arrangements, immigration legal aid providers are struggling to remain viable; if we confine legal aid to asylum, it is doubtful whether good quality practitioners will continue to be available. There is already a surfeit of poor quality lawyers and advisers working in this field, and we would all benefit from better provision because many of them are not up to scratch.”

Labour MP Yvonne Fovargue quoted the Legal Action Group when she said: “The personal, social and economic consequences of removing access to justice for so many people is unknown and unforgiveable.” A former chief executive of St Helens Citizens Advice for more than 20 years, she deplored the loss of most early intervention advice, with access available solely through a telephone gateway. “I believe that such proposals will disadvantage the most vulnerable in our society—the disabled, the elderly, those on a low income with a pre-paid mobile phone who often ring about debt issues, those with mental health issues, those whose first language is not English and many others” she said. Citizens Advice has produced detailed briefings showing the unintended consequences of the Government’s proposals on social welfare law work. Its cost-benefit analysis makes a strong case for retaining and even strengthening its role. It estimates that if funding were no longer available for these categories of law, at least £172 million of additional costs would accrue for both state and society. MP Jeremy Corbyn said: “The number of cases that are dealt with by legal aid in this country at the moment is 934,000…The cuts being proposed will mean that more than 600,000 people will not have access to legal aid. If we want a fair, decent and just society, everyone must have access to the law.”

After a universally negative critique of the green paper from his fellow MPs, Justice Minister Jonathan Djanogly wound up the session with a stonewall recitation of its contents, without giving away any potential significant concession. But the immutable timetable of Parliamentary affairs did leave one cliff hanger. Much had been made during the debate that domestic violence cannot refer simply to physical violence. Dr Huppert said: “We must all be concerned about people suffering the threat of violence and mental torment. I hope that the Government will take seriously the criticisms that they have received on that point and will clarify and strengthen their definition of domestic violence so that those at risk have access to justice and are protected.” The Minister said: “In the consultation, we proposed that private law family legal aid should continue to be available where there is objective evidence of domestic violence. We have asked for views on what might provide objective evidence and therefore trigger private family law legal aid. We have been giving careful consideration to the points raised in response—.” At which point the Chairman said: “Order. I am afraid that we have run out of time for this debate.” It was time to discuss the Avon Ring Road (M4 Link).

The Home Office has launched plans to tackle violence against women and girls. Spouses and partners of UK residents who are forced to flee their relationships as a result of domestic violence will now be able to access vital support services.
The UN declaration on violence against women defines such violence as “any act of genderbased violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life.”
The British Crime Survey reports that every year in the UK more than one million women experience domestic abuse and one in four women will be affected by domestic abuse. More than 300,000 women are sexually assaulted and 60,000 women raped; and more than one in twenty women will be stalked.

The ‘Call to End Violence Against Women and Girls – Action Plan’ has been published alongside the government’s response to Baroness Stern’s review into the handling of rape complaints (see blog “Stern Review” posted on 25.03.10). Key actions from the plan include making data on regional levels of violence against women – including domestic abuse, sexual assault and stalking – more accessible to ensure resources are targeted to where they are most needed. There will be new research aimed at countering the myth that false allegations of rape are common and an independent consultation on the measurement of rape conviction rates.

A new national stalking group will be set up to support the work of the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Crown Prosecution Service in improving the police response to stalking. Action will be taken to raise awareness of the law around sexual offences and challenge attitudes of abuse within teenage relationships. There will be more training for key frontline professionals – including doctors, nurses, health visitors – on identifying and dealing with violence against women. Central funding will be provided for frontline services including rape crisis centres, Independent Domestic Violence Advisors, and four years of funding for the National Domestic Violence Helpline.
Introducing the plan, Home Secretary Theresa May said: “I want to see an end to all forms of violence against women and girls. Our comprehensive and detailed action plan sets out how we are going to tackle these crimes – supporting those at risk, helping victims and ensuring offenders are brought to justice. Most importantly we need to prevent these crimes occurring in the first place. That is why we are challenging and where necessary working to change, attitudes and behaviours.”

The Ministry of Justice has announced more than £10.5 million of funding for three years for rape crisis services. Baroness Stern said: “I welcome the government’s response to the recommendations in my report. Particularly in a time of financial stringency it is good that the government recognises the importance of a specialist and supportive response to rape victims.”

The ‘Call to End Violence Against Women and Girls – Action Plan’ can be found at:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/crime/call-end-violence-women-girls/vawg-action-plan?view=Binary

Photo courtesy of ghetto_guera29′s photostream

In the hiatus following the cancellation of family contracts last autumn two new family fee schemes, due for implementation, were postponed. The Legal Services Commission (LSC) has now announced their belated introduction from 9 May. The new schemes are:

The Family Advocacy Scheme. Under this scheme both solicitor advocates and barristers claim a single, graduated fee for advocacy work done on public and private family law cases.

The Private Family Law Representation Scheme. Under this scheme solicitors claim a standard fixed fee for work done (excluding advocacy) from the issue of proceedings to the conclusion of the final hearing.

The LSC say that online training to help preparation for the new family fee schemes is now available on their training website and encourage family providers and advocates affected by the new schemes to use this training to ensure accurate claiming. The Commission has also published new guidance on their website under Guidance on fees and funding.

Three new forms to support the schemes have been introduced:

• CLAIM1A for non-advocacy work
• CLAIM5A for advocacy work
• Advocates’ Attendance Form for advocates.

If you are an advocate you need to complete the Advocates’ Attendance Form:

• for hearings that last for more than an hour or
• when claiming bolt-ons.

The Court needs to verify the information on this form and it is the advocate’s responsibility to:

• get the form signed at court by the judge, magistrate or legal adviser and
• keep a copy of the signed form.

The advocate should submit this form with their claim. Copies of signed forms will not be kept by the court. The full list of new and revised forms can be found at:

http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/civil/forms/preview_may_2011.asp

But if you are wise enough to be a subscriber to the excellent Anya Designs iLaw system you will have these concerns catered for in the latest service pack being despatched this week.