The shadow justice secretary has dismissed the government’s partial U-turns on domestic violence and clinical negligence as a ‘smokescreen’ to avert losing votes on the reforms in the House of Lords. The government announced yesterday that it had tabled amendments to the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill retaining legal aid for clinical negligence obstetric cases and adopting a wider definition of domestic violence.
The concessions came less than a week before the bill begins its report stage in the House of Lords.
Sadiq Khan MP said the government’s ‘spin tactics’ showed it is ‘more interested in dampening down the prospect of yet more damaging parliamentary defeats than it is in having a fair justice system to protect the most vulnerable’.
He said: ‘Concessions on the availability of legal aid in cases of domestic violence are a smokescreen.’ The real issue, he said, is what evidence is accepted as proof of domestic abuse.
Under the proposals in the bill, before a party is eligible for legal aid in private family law cases, they must provide evidence of domestic violence showing they have taken civil or criminal proceedings against the alleged perpetrators.
Critics say that this evidential requirement is too restrictive and will exclude many victims from receiving legal aid. They have urged the government to widen the evidential requirements to, for example, include evidence from GPs.
Khan said: ‘Even with the government's changes many genuine victims of abuse will not be helped, despite there being evidence of abuse from reputable sources.’
David Allison, chair of family lawyers group Resolution, welcomed the government’s acceptance of the definition of domestic violence used by the Association of Chief Police Officers, but echoed Khan’s concern about the evidential criteria. Allison said the government should think again about the impact of its proposals.
On the clinical negligence amendment, which would retain automatic legal aid in cases concerning severely injured babies, Khan said: ‘We will need to consider the proposed amendments in detail, but on the face of it, they do not address our concerns or those of victims’ groups.
‘Expert reports in clinical negligence are very expensive and it is our view that all incidents of clinical negligence should be covered by legal aid,’ he said.
The chief executive of campaign group Action against Medical Accidents, Peter Walsh, said the concession is ‘a step in the right direction’ but repeated his call for legal aid to be available for all clinical negligence claims. He said: 'How can it be that a child who suffers a catastrophic injury due to clinical negligence at the age of two, as a toddler, or even a teenager is less deserving of access to justice than one who suffers their injury at childbirth?'
Walsh said: ‘The government has bowed to mounting pressure in an attempt to stave off rebellion by Liberal Democrat and Conservative peers and a likely defeat in a vote in the Lords next week on an amendment to keep all clinical negligence cases in scope for legal aid.’
He said the government’s policy is ‘incoherent’ and will damage access to justice unless greater changes are made. ‘Given that they admit they got it wrong with regard to birth cases it would now be completely irrational not to allow legal aid to continue for all people harmed as a result of clinical negligence,’ he said.
No comments yet