Civil justice changes
will wreak havoc on the rights of injured victims, says Law
Society
The Law Society has today called upon the
government to think again about proposals in part 2 of the Legal
Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill due to be debated
by the House of Lords today (Monday).
These changes seek to cherry pick the
recommendations made in a separate report by Lord Justice Jackson.
In the Law Society's view these changes, along with the cuts to
legal aid, form a double assault on access to justice.
Desmond Hudson Chief Executive of the Law
Society said:
“The expansion of 'no win, no fee'
arrangements was made in the late 1990s to compensate for the
reductions in legal aid funding at that time. The then Government
acknowledged that without legal aid some other funding mechanism
was required. This time, however, the Government is proposing to
further reduce legal aid spending while effectively dismantling the
'no win, no fee' system, which will leave many people without
effective access to justice.
“The Government is introducing these
reforms despite them not being in the Coalition Agreement. While
there are always arguments to be made about expenditure,
particularly in the current climate, the changes to the 'no win, no
fee' rules will not actually assist the Government in making
savings. We believe they risk a substantial transfer of money from
injured victims and claimants to the already profitable liability
insurance industry while at the same time increasing costs to the
NHS.”
Under the proposals claimants will have to pay
up to 25 per cent of their legal fees (such as the 'success
fee') out of their own damages, thus effectively transferring costs
from the wrong-doing party (and their insurers) back to the injured
victim.
The proposed new system will also put a squeeze
on small businesses chasing debtors in the courts and deny those
mis-sold financial products the ability to pursue
justice.
Desmond Hudson added:
“The changes to 'no win, no fee'
arrangements represent a complete and unnecessary policy about
turn, when a lean on the tiller would achieve the desired
improvements. They favour the wrong-doer and their insurers rather
than the injured person. We call upon the Government to think again
otherwise the only result will be rejoicing in the boardrooms of
insurance companies at the expense of the injured
victim.'
Ends
Contact:
Steve Rudaini in The Law Society Press Office on +44 (0)20 7320
5902