Barristers warn legal aid cuts could create gridlock in courts

The Ministry of Justice’s proposed cuts to legal aid will almost certainly lead to a significant increase in litigants in person and could create gridlock in the courts, the Bar Council has claimed.

In its examination of the government’s Green Paper on legal aid, it warned that the proposals “could end up costing rather than saving taxpayers’ money, with a devastating effect on access to justice”.

Stephen Cobb QC, chairman of the Family Law Bar Association, who led the Bar Council’s response, said: “We fear these attempted cuts, being so crude and brutal, will cost more than they save. They will trigger a surge in DIY litigants which risks gridlock in the courts, as they struggle to get justice.

“This will slow down the court process considerably. 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.”

The Bar Council claimed that the proposals would have a major effect on the administration of justice and the running of the courts, and would also increase the burden on other government departments – in particular the Department of Health.

The body, which represents barristers in England and Wales, said it understood the government’s need to save money. “We want to cut out waste and support the government’s drive to cut back on bureaucracy,” Cobb said. “This response is not about barristers, but about ensuring that where cuts are made access to justice does not suffer.”

The FLBA chairman claimed that the MoJ’s proposals had not been properly impact-assessed, and warned that they could have “seemingly unintended and very serious” consequences.

Cobb insisted that the threats posed by the government’s proposals in front line practice areas such as crime and family law were “real and potentially brutal”.

He added: “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.”

Cobb also warned that the future quality and diversity of the legal profession would also suffer, with young barristers forced to leave publicly funded practice, while the court system could see “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,” he argued. “This is not the type of justice that a civilised society should expect.”