Labour pledges to roll back obstacles to legal aid for victims of domestic abuse

Announcement coincides with calls from former judges and senior lawyers to restore access to funding to prevent ‘widespread miscarriages of justice’

Victims of domestic violence will be given easier access to legal aid to help them escape abusive relationships, Labour pledge d on Monday in a pre-election spending commitment.

The anticipated £5m cost of expanding the scheme, expected to help thousands of women, will be paid for by increases in the victim’s surcharge, Sadiq Khan, the party’s justice spokesman, has promised.

The announcement, saved up for the home sprint of the election campaign, coincides with calls at the weekend from more than 100 former judges and senior lawyers for political parties to restore cuts to legal aid.

Of the estimated £600m taken out of the annual legal aid budget by the coalition government, the regulations limiting who is entitled to support – in the context of allegations of domestic violence – have proved to be the most contentious.

Changes introduced by Ken Clarke when justice secretary, under the 2012 Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act mean victims seeking legal advice must produce documentary proof they meet strict criteria. This is required at precisely the moment they – usually vulnerable women – are most at risk from threatening or violent partners.

Labour has promised to ease the process significantly if it forms the next government. Khan said: “It’s a disgrace that thousands of victims of domestic violence have been denied justice because of this government’s actions. Many have been trapped in abusive relationships and their suffering prolonged as a result. Labour is not prepared to sit idly by and let this continue.”

Without legal aid in family cases, some victims have been forced to endure cross-examination from their attackers in court and been unable to disentangle their financial affairs from former partners.

Labour is promising to lower the threshold at which victims of domestic violence gain entitlement to legal aid by expanding the types of evidence deemed admissible.

Officials, including GPs, will no longer be able to charge for writing letters used as proof that a victim has suffered abuse. The current regulations, which limit evidence of domestic violence to the previous two years, will be reviewed.

The Legal Aid Agency’s much criticised exceptional funding scheme, which is supposed to provide a safety net for applicants in desperate cases, will also be overhauled, Labour vows.

The shadow justice secretary added: “Labour will change the rules for legal aid so that more victims of domestic violence get the support they need. We will widen the number of organisations that can be used by victims to obtain proof and work with relevant public authorities, such as GPs, so that victims are no longer charged for evidence they require in order to be eligible for legal aid.

“We are also going to take a serious look at the two-year rule on evidence eligibility. In the real world, the damage done by domestic violence doesn’t just stop two years after the event. There needs to be much greater flexibility in the system to take into account the really difficult circumstances faced by many victims of domestic violence.”

The campaign group Rights of Women claims that 40% of women affected by domestic violence are prevented from obtaining legal aid. According to Women’s Aid, on average two women a week are killed by a current or former partner.

The Law Society, which represents solicitors and has supported judicial review challenges against the legal aid act’s guidelines, estimates that, each year, 500 recent victims of domestic violence kill themselves.

Many victims do not report abuse because of shame or fear, meaning that securing documentation, such as a letter from a GP, is extremely difficult.

Some other forms of verification are already acceptable such as time spent at a refuge, proof that an abusive partner has a conviction or is on bail, ongoing criminal proceedings, a letter from social services or a domestic violence protection notice or domestic violence protection order granted.

A report by Rights of Women, Women’s Aid Federation England and Welsh Women’s Aid found 60% of women surveyed said they could not take legal action because they were not eligible for legal aid.

In some recent cases, it has been reported, legal aid has been withdrawn if the evidence ‘expires’ during legal proceedings – unless victims can provide fresh evidence of abuse within the two-year time limit, no more legal aid will be available.

Emma Scott, director of Rights of Women, welcomed Labour’s policy announcement. “We hear every day the devastating impact of the legal aid cuts on women affected by violence and how they are restricting women’s access to the very family law remedies which could afford them safety. We welcome Labour’s proposals to amend the domestic violence evidence criteria. The forms of evidence required to access family law legal aid must reflect the reality of women’s experience of violence if access to legal aid and to the family courts is to be a reality for them.”
The Ministry of Justice has in the past defended its regulations governing access to legal aid. Earlier this year spokesperson said: “This government is exceptionally clear that victims of domestic violence should get legal aid wherever they need it to help break free from the abusive relationship. That is why we listened carefully to concerns and made changes to expand the types of evidence that could be used to access legal aid.

“Since the reforms were introduced thousands of people have successfully applied for legal aid where domestic violence is involved. However, we have always said we will keep the new system under review, and our door is always open to those with evidence about concerns.

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/may/04/labour-pledges-to-roll-back-obstacles-legal-aid-victims-domestic-abuse?CMP=share_btn_tw#Vote

The cuts to legal aid have seriously put at risk those suffering from domestic abuse, it has been disgusting.

Without legal aid in family cases, some victims have been forced to endure cross-examination from their attackers in court and been unable to disentangle their financial affairs from former partners.

Are we talking about criminal cases? The victim would be a witness, and will be cross-examined like any other witness. It's up to the prosecution to object. I don't see what this has to do with legal aid.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Without legal aid in family cases, some victims have been forced to endure cross-examination from their attackers in court and been unable to disentangle their financial affairs from former partners.

Are we talking about criminal cases? The victim would be a witness, and will be cross-examined like any other witness. It's up to the prosecution to object. I don't see what this has to do with legal aid.

No, this refers to family court. In criminal proceedings the victim has no representation.

I really hope that they do reinstate legal aid. We need mandatory training for judges barristers and all court officials to ensure they understand domestic abuse. At present no more than a handful do.
Which is why we still have women dying.
Three women in North Liverpool in the last month alone, four if you include the child of one victim who jumped in front of a train as she couldn't stand the loss of her mum.

Nems wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Are we talking about criminal cases? The victim would be a witness, and will be cross-examined like any other witness. It's up to the prosecution to object. I don't see what this has to do with legal aid.

No, this refers to family court. In criminal proceedings the victim has no representation.

I really hope that they do reinstate legal aid. We need mandatory training for judges barristers and all court officials to ensure they understand domestic abuse. At present no more than a handful do.
Which is why we still have women dying.
Three women in North Liverpool in the last month alone, four if you include the child of one victim who jumped in front  of a train as she couldn't stand the loss of her mum.

Is it to do with restraining orders and that kind of thing then? If a woman has been attacked by her partner, surely that's a matter for the police, not a family court?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nems wrote:

No, this refers to family court. In criminal proceedings the victim has no representation.

I really hope that they do reinstate legal aid. We need mandatory training for judges barristers and all court officials to ensure they understand domestic abuse. At present no more than a handful do.
Which is why we still have women dying.
Three women in North Liverpool in the last month alone, four if you include the child of one victim who jumped in front  of a train as she couldn't stand the loss of her mum.

Is it to do with restraining orders and that kind of thing then? If a woman has been attacked by her partner, surely that's a matter for the police, not a family court?

It will be family court for contact arrangements and ancillary relief etc. the family court doesn't feel that being an abusive or violent partner makes you a bad parent. The family court does not recognise police opinion etc. For example, the police couldn't put the bail restrictions on my ex husband because the family court said I had to take them to him and pick them up from his each contact visit.

Nems wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Is it to do with restraining orders and that kind of thing then? If a woman has been attacked by her partner, surely that's a matter for the police, not a family court?

It will be family court for contact arrangements and ancillary relief etc. the family court doesn't  feel that being an abusive or violent partner makes you a bad parent. The family court does not recognise police opinion etc. For example, the police couldn't put the bail restrictions on my ex husband because the family court said I had to take them to him and pick them up from his each contact visit.

Does the opposing person get legal aid though? If none of them get it, they're in the same boat.

worra muppet

darknessss wrote:worra muppet

Anything useful to add, or are you just going to troll around again?

well ragga it seems the simplest things escape your tiny mind


The "opposing person" i.e the abusive partner in almost EVERY case has gained control of finances and is in a far beter financial situation than the abused one.....

THAT is not equitable...
the Abuser can afford council..quite possibly a barrister
the abused probably cant even afford a junior clerk......

darknessss wrote:well ragga it seems the simplest things escape your tiny mind


The "opposing person" i.e the abusive partner in almost EVERY case has gained control of finances and is in a far beter financial situation than the abused one.....

THAT is not equitable...
the Abuser can afford council..quite possibly a barrister
the abused probably cant even afford a junior clerk......

Oh really? I hope you can back that up.

The article is too vague anyway - as usual.

I dont have to "back it up" except to an idiot

you clearly have never worked in this area or with people in these kind of situations....

women in "safe houses" or shelters
with children to care for

men on the street (because there are few if any mens "safe houses" and when I last had anything to do with it NO "mens shelters")

who have had to leave with literally nothing but what they stand up in

who have had their accounts emptied by partners

whos situation means they lose their job (principally because they become homeless)

you have no idea.....

darknessss wrote:I dont have to "back it up" except to an idiot

you clearly have never worked in this area or with people in these kind of situations....

women in "safe houses" or shelters
with children to care for

men on the street (because there are few if any mens "safe houses" and when I last had anything to do with it NO "mens shelters")

who have had to leave with literally nothing but what they stand up in

who have had their accounts emptied by partners

whos situation means they lose their job (principally because they become homeless)

you have no idea.....

Oh well - talk to someone else about it then - idiot.

yep ragga

spoilt little brat

clearly you have had everything given on a plate

you have NO idea of the "real world"

darknessss wrote:yep ragga

spoilt little brat

clearly you have had everything given on a plate

you have NO idea of the "real world"

It's not my fault the article is vague, and that you say things that you can't back up.

and its not my fault you are clueless either....

darknessss wrote:and its not my fault you are clueless either....

Do stop whining. I have no further interest in this topic, so you're wasting your time. Go and harass some immigrants or something.

mad as a box of frogs

why would i propose to harrass an immigrant?

you really are dumb.....

Raggs be like


Darkness be like


Raggs:


Dark:

darknessss wrote:worra muppet

Why are you digging someone out just because they're asking questions vic?
Seems very unfair

Because eddie the "question " was disingeniously stupid

quote
"Does the opposing person get legal aid though? If none of them get it, they're in the same boat."

just read it

it would be a reasonable question if only the first part was asked

the second part is pure idiocy (it is also patently untrue, except in a very tiny minority of cases)

darknessss wrote:Because eddie the "question " was disingeniously stupid

quote
"Does the opposing person get legal aid though? If none of them get it, they're in the same boat."

just read it

it would be a reasonable question if only the first part was asked

the second part is pure idiocy (it is also patently untrue, except in a very tiny minority of cases)

The second part follows on logically from a negative answer to the first part.

I must say that some of the chaps on this forum have a very high opinion of themselves.