'Ayo Joanna Lumley' will the Justice Secretary be next to feel the wrath of Ms Lumley?

Ayo Gorkhali - here come the Gurkhas, the now famous battle cry of the Gurkhas, may once again be changed to Ayo Joanna Lumley as she joins the fight to prevent the Government cutting millions of pounds from legal aid.

Could Kenneth Clark, the Justice Secretary,  become the next to yield to what can only be called the brilliant campaign style of Ms Lumley?  Her support for the Gurkhas in their fight to secure better rights for those wanting to remain in the United Kingdom, was relentless.  Ms Lumley has now, together with legal experts, the Bar Council and the Law Society,  turned her attention to the proposed cuts to the legal aid budget.

Ms Lumley is backing the Sound Off for Justice campaign saying that without legal aid cases like the Gurkha Justice Campaign "could never have been fought, let alone won".

"Everyone has a right to be heard," she said.

"I believe justice is only just if it is available to everyone."

The Bar Council and the Law Society, representing barristers and solicitors in England and Wales, said the cuts "could end up costing rather than saving taxpayers' money, with a devastating effect on access to justice" 

Mr Clarke launched the Ministry of Justice's Green Paper last November. In it are plans to axe civil legal aid for a wide range of disputes, and includes disputes over relationship break-ups, school admissions and expulsions, as well as clinical negligence. The proposals would help save £350 million over the next four years.

Stephen Cobb QC, chairman of the Family Law Bar Association, said the proposals would trigger "a surge in DIY litigants which risks gridlock in the courts, as they struggle to get justice".

"The threats posed by the Government's proposals are real and potentially brutal," he said.
"In family cases, men or women suffering from serious psychological abuse may go unrepresented in private law proceedings.

"Parents, without representation, could face the removal of their children into care if the court finds reasonable grounds for believing that the children are suffering significant harm.

"Consumers suffering at the hands of negligent corporate entities may have to fund their own claims.

"The list is extensive."

He went on: "More people will face courtroom ordeals, without the benefit of experienced lawyers to advise them as to their rights and guide them through court procedures.

"Instead, where would-be litigants may be advised not to bring a claim, or to settle, they will turn to the courts alone.

"The impact on the court system will be longer trials, more appeals, more costs and the risk of miscarriages of justice.

"Worse still, without the help and support of a proper system of legal aid, vulnerable people whose rights have been infringed may not be in a position to pursue those rights at all. This is not the type of justice that a civilised society should expect."

Mr Cobb added: "We fear these attempted cuts, being so crude and brutal, will cost more than they save.

"In the absence of proper or reliable evidence on which the proposals are based, and our identification of clear unintended consequences, the Government cannot say with any confidence that the proposed cuts will not end up costing as much as it is trying to save.

"Put simply, the proposals don't add up."

Linda Lee, the Law Society's president, said: "We recognise that in this tough economic climate tough decisions need to be made, but these must not risk doing lasting damage to access to justice.

"We believe what is currently on the table is just another example of panic-stricken cuts.

"We believe these cuts are ill conceived and unfair and that the Government risks doing long-lasting damage to justice in this country. Sound Off For Justice aims to give the public the voice to say no."

Related Items

The items below list this Article as being related in some way.


There are no related tags.

Amazon's recommended Books

RSS Feeds


Recent Posts

The latest posts from the lawmentor.co.uk blog archives.

Caparo three part test – revisited

In Robinson the Supreme Court laid to rest the proposition that there is a Caparo test which applies to all claims in the modern law of negligence.

Statutory interpretation - penal legislation is construed strictly

The Supreme Court reminded everyone per Lord Reed and Lord Hughes that 'Penal legislation is construed strictly, particularly where the penalty involves deprivation of liberty'.

Court of appeal gives judgment acknowledging unmarried woman's rights

The claim related to bereavement payments under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 as amended.

European union law – in the case of conflict between national law and european law

Walker (Appellant) v Innospec Limited and others (Respondents) [2017] UKSC 47 On appeal from [2015] EWCA Civ 1000

Vicarious liability is alive and well

This decision extends the doctrine of vicarious liability in respect of foster carers for the fist time and it represents another example of the potential for the expansion of this form of liability.

Supreme court busy - make sure you are geared up for your course

The Supreme Court has been especially busy lately.

Gina miller v secretary of state for exiting the eu 2016 as an example of the importance of judicial independence

Law students are now required to take note of how the independence and work of the judiciary has been reformed

Policing and crime bill and provisions for bail after arrest but before charge

The clear intention is that decisions on pre-charge bail should come under scrutiny.