Sample Solution

Personally, I feel this act was unnecessary in terms of funding as it has put a severe strain on individuals that need to bring cases to court but do not have the necessary funds. The eligibility of cases has been strictly narrowed and the negative consequences of the legal aid cuts outweigh the positives. I feel this act has no regard for society and is only concerned with money. The reduction in funding is still unclear as to what sector the money is being used for now. On the other hand, this act has allowed amendments to be made to the criminal justice system, this suggests other aspects of this act are beneficial such as the sentencing of offenders and new offences are being created. Also, the alterations to bail which have improved the protection of the public especially in domestic violence cases. Also, the case of Jonathan Vass 2010 provoked the amendment of the right of appeal to prosecution for bail. This act has helped many departments of criminal proceedings but refused to acknowledge the effect of funding cuts in the civil justice system.

In Conclusion, I feel this act was not necessary to be passed in regard to funding and legal aid. It has put an unnecessary strain on the public, companies and even legal professionals. Narrowing the number of cases legal aid is available for has had a destructive and damaging impact on the legal system and left so many people in a vulnerable position. I feel it interferes with our access to justice and several cases and people are not treated fairly due to this act.

Bibliography:

Statutes

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offender Act 2012

The Access to Justice Act 1999

The Human Rights Act 1998

Cases

R (on the application of Henderson) v secretary of state for justice [2015] All ER (D) 212 (Ja