It is inevitable that budget cuts and increases in taxes will hit the poor more than anyone else. Despite the fact that over two million people rely on legal aid, justice secretary Kenneth Clarke has announced a reduction in funding of £350 million. This threatens to undermine the principle that everyone should have access to the court system, and that the state should provide legal services to people who would otherwise be unable to afford representation.

There are many conditions which must be fulfilled In order to qualify for legal aid. So how poor is poor? How poor must one be, before considered as absolutely desperate and in need, to be entitled to legal aid? Eligibility for legal aid is dependent on the type of case you need representation for, whether you are in receipt of certain benefits, and you must have a monthly disposable income of under £315 in order to access the full legal aid scheme. Nevertheless, there are certain exceptions to these qualifying rules. This includes the case of the three MPs on trial for claims of false accounting collectively amounting up to £60,000 in allowances. Despite each having been on an annual salary of £65,000, Jim Devine, David Chaytor and Elliot Morley will all receive legal aid to fight their cases.

This leads us to question the fairness and equality of the legal aid system. Surely those who earn above the average income will not be as sorely affected by legal aid cuts as families below the means tested amount, who struggle to make ends meet on a daily basis? This is without even considering the size of their families, other financial issues, such as debt, and further expenses the government does not deem as ‘necessary’.

Legal aid lawyers will also be affected, as one of the lowest paid groups in the public sector, earning around £25,000 a year. If potential law students already felt deterred from completing their training contract in this field due to the meagre wages (compared to the £40,000 of corporate city firms’ trainees), the scrapping of the legal aid training contract grant scheme would only have added to this feeling.  The scheme ended this year as ‘legal aid has to bear its share of the cuts across the whole public sector’.

With over 3,500 new criminal offences introduced under the Labour government, surely it would be more effective and efficient to have more lawyers dealing with the inevitable rise in criminal cases? Rather than having fewer lawyers, weighed down with growing case loads, and the same ridiculously low income. However, if they thought this was unfair and wanted to challenge the system, they would have to do so out of their own pockets as these underpaid lawyers still wouldn’t qualify for legal aid.

Legal aid funds will also be cut by reducing the scope of work made available to those who require it. Kenneth Clarke said tax payers should not have to pay for ‘unnecessary court cases’ that could be resolved by other means. A person involved in a personal negligence case should seek a ‘no win no fee’ policy regardless of the risks and liabilities involved in the conditional ‘losing’ fee. This fits in with the view of those who believe that the UK holds a ‘compensation culture’. Certain legal disputes are regarded as ‘trivial cases’, which should not be brought into the court, and should definitely not be advocated by state-funded barristers. Rather, it is thought that we should seek justice between each other and resolve disputes outside of court. 

Perhaps this is just romanticising the nature of dispute resolution. Surely, if one is prepared to go through the rigorous process of a court case, in order to solve their problems, they must have exhausted all other means? Take the example of a divorce case, a couple struggling to split their assets and share custody of their children. Without a doubt they would have sought therapy, mediation, and various other forms of intervention to solve their marital issues privately. Certainly, going to court and seeking legal advice would be the least favoured means of resolution, and definitely a last resort, before having all private details of their marriage inspected and questioned in a court. Everyday countless disputes arise, where people involved do not even recognise that there are legal issues surrounding their problem, let alone taking extensive means to reclaim their compensation. In turn this leads us to question if a ‘compensation culture’ truly exists, or is it simply a myth to deter people away from accessing full justice and complete legal advice.

Whereas ‘no win no fee’ policies, legal insurance and private arbitration may all seem like cost effective replacements for legal aid, the truth is legal defence is irreplaceable. These methods of replacing the legal aid system would in fact result in the ‘cheapening of justice’, and the value of what it represents.

Another argument made in favour of legal representation choices independent of the state is that as defence barristers are commonly defending their clients in cases against the state, state money should not be used to pay their fees. However, if prosecution is state funded, then in the interest of ensuring total access to law, irrespective of means to pay, legal defence should be made available to all. Legal aid is the only service available which levels out the playing field between classes and in doing so places the focus on justice and the rule of law.  Without a system such as this, many legally ignorant people could end up fighting their own cases in court unsuccessfully, despite their innocence.

Discouraging people from seeking legal advice when issues arise, may marginally reduce the UK’s deficit, but will definitely have a great impact on people’s lives should they be consulted with incorrect legal information in an attempt to save money. Furthermore, should this happen, this could just be the creation of a vicious circle of increasingly complex and expensive court cases. If the budget assigned to legal aid is cut, not only will poorer individuals suffer, but also legal aid lawyers and firms, families with incomes under the national average, and those with disputes the government considers ‘unnecessary court cases’. Legal aid is a fundamental element of the rule of law, and therefore it should not be considered as a political choice, but rather a social and legal necessity.