Complete rethink on legal aid needed, say Neuberger and the chair of the Bar

The president of the Supreme Court and the chair of the Bar have both warned that cuts to legal aid must be reversed to some extent if the justice system is to function properly and the public are to be able to access their legal rights.

Cuts to legal aid are forcing increasing numbers of people to represent themselves in court because they are unable to access legal representation. But far from the cuts saving money, their consequences have actually been to slow down the legal system as cases are taking longer to progress through the courts. The cuts have also lowered the quality of the limited representation that is available, as barristers are having to take on more and more cases back to back, spending less time preparing for each one, just to make ends meet.

Supreme Court president Lord Neuberger has given a speech analysing the decline of legal aid over the last 20 years. He said: “Many people [are faced] with the unedifying choice of being driven from the courts or having to represent themselves… [it] verges on the hypocritical for governments to bestow rights on citizens while doing very little to ensure that those rights are enforceable…The two fundamental functions of any government are the defence of the realm and the maintenance of the rule of law. Historically, these were the only two functions of government and even today, while social security, health and education may attract more attention and more money, they would be of little value if the government failed to defend the realm or to maintain the rule of law.”

Andrew Langdon QC, the chair of the Bar, supported Neuberger’s argument. He commented: “Lord Neuberger’s words have added considerable weight to the concerns voiced by the Bar Council and an increasing number of legal professionals that the decline of legal aid since 1999 poses an increasing threat to the rule of law at home. There needs to be a complete rethink on the availability and sufficiency of legal aid to prevent a dislocation of the law from the very many who cannot afford its protection.”