Courts may pay for legal representation if the Legal Aid Agency refuses to provide it
Sir James Munby, the president of the Family Division of the High Court, has ruled that the court service should pay for people’s lawyers if the Legal Aid Agency refuses to provide them, in order to ensure justice is done.
The ruling covers three separate unidentified family cases, titled Q v Q, Re B (A Child) and Re C (A Child), in which none of the fathers wishing to play a part in the life of their child had lawyers to argue their cases, while the mothers received public funding to pay for legal representation.
Previously, in the case of Q v Q, Sir James had asked Chris Grayling, the justice secretary, to explain how the case could proceed without legal aid. Sir James said the problems with the cases somewhat pre-date the government’s legal cuts. However, he added that ‘most practitioners and judges with any practical experience of the family justice system would recognise [them] as having been very considerably exacerbated’ by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the IBB Solicitors briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.