The
European countries are currently witnessing
a transformation in terms of diversity including arrival of new refugees
seen as a ‘’truly productive force of humanity’’ while others view them as
‘’extreme burden’’ forcing governments to enact, amend or introduce measures
sometimes described as ‘’controversial’’.
In
addition, due to the economic downturn which some of these countries are yet to
overcome, certain governments decided to introduce measures to reduce or cut
funding on various areas affecting its citizens prompting widespread debates
and discussions.
The
Point learnt that as results of such cuts especially on legal representation,
the Law Society of England and Wales has strongly suggested to the UK
government to ‘’reconsider’’ its decision regarding cuts to legal aid five
years since it was introduced.
The
Act known as the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012
(LASPO) became law and is now four years since the measures finally came into
force.
In
a document addressed to this correspondent, Robert Bourns, outgoing President
of the Law Society of England and Wales insisted that even though LASPO ‘’was
an ambitious piece of legislation, overhauling the legal aid system alongside a
range of other reforms to the justice system... many of the changes were
controversial’’.
President
Bourns also recalled that the issue had ‘’generated often heated opposition
from social justice organisations and the legal sector, including the Law Society’’.
He
added that ‘’it will come as no surprise that, overall, our conclusions
regarding the changes to legal aid are not positive. ‘’
However,
the government had earlier announced that the reforms ‘’would take 3-5 years to
become established and stable’’, but the Law Society is not satisfied with its
overall performance and consequently urges the government to consider three
areas of concern: access to justice; impact on the wider justice system;
knock-on costs for the public purse’’.
If
these issues are not addressed, the Law Society said it fear that they will
‘’worsen and generate additional problems for the future’’.
It
also contested that the reduction of free or subsidized legal advice can also
increase the ‘’burden on public services’’, thus suggesting that a lack of
early legal advice can cause relatively ‘’minor problems to escalate, creating
health, social and financial problems, and put pressure on public services’’.
In
a blunt but serious conclusion it added that ‘’this situation is not sustainable...
We welcomed the previous government’s announcement of a review into LASPO, and
we hope that this opportunity to address some of the adverse consequences of
the Act is taken’’.
Since
its introduction, legal practitioners and several other institutions across the
country actually petitioned or condemned it outright and appealed to the
government to abolish it.
Nonetheless,
it is important to note that the UK is view by many to be a generous nation and
thus the issue of legal aid has been a subject of debate and discussion
prompting more than 100 judges, peers, and prominent lawyers and other
professionals including doctors across the country working in the civil and
criminal justice system to address an open letter to the Guardian newspaper
asking the incoming government to restore the legal aid in order to ‘’prevent
widespread miscarriage of justice’’.
However
the government had argued and defended vehemently that it ‘’was necessary to
cut legal aid on the grounds that savings had to be made’’.
It
also added that after careful consideration, taking into account that the ‘’UK
has one the most expensive legal systems in the world, costing around £1.5bn a
year’’, such a reform is necessary.
The
government had also gave assurance that following the reform, the legal aid
‘’will still remain generous and that anyone suspected of a crime will still
have access to a legal aid lawyer’’.