Legal aid is the provision of support to those who cannot afford legal representation and is applicable to both criminal and civil cases. Legal Aid can be regarded to be a cornerstone of a civilized society due to the fact that it allows everyone to be represented and defended in the court of law and was first introduced in 1949 with the Legal Aid and Advice Act. Legal aid can also be seen to uphold article six of the Human Rights Act 1998 which states “everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing .” In recent years the application of Legal Aid has been reduced drastically with the introduction of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) which raises the question of, does legal aid offer justice for all? This …show more content…
This is due to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. LASPO greatly reduces the applicability of legal aid mainly in civil cases. According to House of L8ords Justice Committee Report the intent of LAPSO was to reduce overall spending towards legal aid by reducing unnecessary legal aid claims while increasing the quality of legal aid being received by the tax payer by focusing legal aid on specific case types . This was achieved through limiting the scope of legal aid. Under LAPSO legal aid no longer applies to family cases, immigration cases , employment cases, welfare claims, and housing matters . These cuts do not necessarily reduce unnecessary legal aid claims nor do they increase the quality of legal aid being received. However, these cuts clearly limit the peoples access to justice. This can be seen with increasingly high closure rating of legal aid centers across the country as well as overall budget cuts to the legal aid fund .Additionally, in April of 2014 the U.K government began its £350 million cut to the legal aid fund. This resulted of cuts of up 30% for barristers pay in legal aid cases. Imran Khan who was the solicitor in the R. v Dobson case stated that if the case came across his desk today he would not be able to pursue it due to the budget cuts and said “I can’t imagine there is going to be another Lawrence case for a long time – if ever. ” Imran Khan was not the only person to criticize LAPSO, Lord Neuberger, the president of the supreme court stated in a BBC interview “people will feel like the government isn't giving them access to justice in all sorts of cases .” On the other hand, some have praised LAPSO for solidifying the rights of abuse victims for legal aid. Under LAPSO if a person can show that they have been abused by producing trigger evidence which is stated
Justice can be achieved through various processes and principles if applied correctly, similarly justice can also be denied through these same processes and principles. This is exemplified through the Andrew Mallard case (M v The Queen 2005 HCA 68), and the missing persons case of Kieffen Raggett (2007) which shows how the incorrect application of processes like police investigations and coronial inquests can lead to justice being denied. Furthermore, legal principles such as; the rights of the accused and victims, are instrumental in achieving justice as shown through the application of these principles within these cases. These processes and principles can fail due to prejudged conclusions, police corruption, human error and cultural barriers
Criminal law attempts to balance the rights of individuals to freedom from interference with person or property, and society’s need for order. Procedural matters, the rights of citizens and powers of the state, specific offences and defences, and punishment and compensation are some of the ways society and the criminal justice system interact.
The criminal justice system is dynamic and has changed rapidly since the works of Cesare Beccaria and Cesare Lombroso during Enlightenment Period and this reflects in the issue of intersectionality with the changing approaches taken towards concepts of gender, race and class. Sexual assault will be a predominate study used throughout the essay to examine the different approaches and issues between traditional and non-traditional justices. This essay will first establish where are these intersectionalities found in terms of sexual assault cases and the challenges victims face in the legal process with traditional approaches then followed by a comparison to the transition towards non-traditional alternative justice system has responded with a deeper insight into restorative justices and its effects on resolving these challenges. The role of alternative justice and the key challenges in disproportionate crimes are also important aspects of intersectionality in Australia as they aim to resolve challenges women and the mentally disabled encounter during processing through court in the criminal justice system.
This essay will hold a discussion regarding two main principles: fairness and justice. In particular, to what extent Australian legal system is based on fairness and justice?
I take into consideration that instead of authorizing the state or professional to ratify and speak their mind, the most relevance to a case the court should take into consideration of what the victim seems fit as a fair punishment or payment in forms of restitution, whether it is labor or monetary to then go along with the judge 's sentence. “The Charter, apart from other things, sets forth that the victim should enjoy the same rights as the culprit. But it is not enough to put this in writing, the law has to be changed in such a way that the victim is not only not deprived of his say, but has rights at least equal to those enjoyed by the accused”. I agree with the previous quote due to the fact that victims should not be deprived from speech and equality. I believe that by having the original parties engaged rather than being driven to the side, society will be more concerned to make sure that everyone is given fair, equal and consistent resolution to a conflict. This would establish that the neighbourhood and state have a set of shared values and goals that they are working towards to support social order. “At present, the role of a victim of a crime is only at the periphery of the criminal justice delivery system. Once the first information is furnished, the only stage at which the victim comes into the picture is when she is called upon to give evidence in court by the prosecution. The victim virtually
For many people, Legal Aid is the only option to defend their cases. In an Australia Institute report, ‘Justice for All,’ it is estimated that, out of 1.7 million Australians encountering legal problems each year, nearly a third will not receive legal advice due to financial reasons and lack of knowledge. Although Legal Aid is a valuable and useful resource, it is only available to the those on the lowest income, due to the lack of funding from the government. Also, Legal Aid lawyers often don’t have enough time to adequately talk to their clients about cases, making it difficult to present an in-depth case. This lack of funding forces people to take the case into their own hands, which is mostly unsuccessful due to the complicated mechanisms of the legal system. These faults in the system make the courts less effective in achieving
It is also argued that solicitors are too close to the issues to argue the case well. Some people say that the double manning of cases is also responsible for some inefficiency. It encourages the ‘shrugging off’ of responsibility. Responsibility can be pushed from one to the other and standards will fall. OTHER COUNTRIES
Over the years, the traditional criminal justice system has emphasized offenders’ accountability through punishment and stigmatization. The emphasis on the retributive philosophy made it challenging for the system to meaningfully assist and empower crime victims. In the criminal justice system, victims often face insensitive treatment with little or no opportunity for input into the perseverance of their case and report feeling voiceless in the process used (Choi, Gilbert, & Green, 2013:114). Crime victims, advocates, and practitioners have called for an expansion of victims’ rights and community-based alternatives, rather than punishment-oriented justice policies. What victims want from the criminal justice system is a less formal process, more information about case processing, respectful treatment, and emotional restoration.
Glaucon attempted to prove that injustice is preferable to justice. At first, Glacon agreed with Socrates that justice is a good thing, but implored on the nature of its goodness? He listed three types of “good”; that which is good for its own sake (such as playing games), that which is good is good in itself and has useful consequences (such as reading), and that which is painful but has good consequences (such as surgery). Socrates replied that justice "belongs in the fairest class, that which a man who is to be happy must love both for its own sake and for the results." (45d) Glaucon then reaffirmed Thrasymachus’s position that unjust people lead a better life than just people. He started that being just is simply a formality for maintaining a good reputation and for achieving one’s goals. He claimed that the only reason why a person would choose to be unjust rather than just due to the fear of punishment. This is supported by the story of the shepherd who became corrupted as a result of finding a ring which made him invisible. He took over the kingdom through murder and intrigue since he knew there could be no repercussions for his unjust actions. In addition, Adiamantus stated that unjust people did not need to fear divine punishment since appeals could be made to Gods’ egos via sacrifices. Finally, Glaucon gave an example of the extreme unjust person who has accumulated great wealth and power which he juxtaposed with an extreme moral man who is being punished unjustly for his crimes. Clearly, injustice is preferable to justice since it provides for a more fruitful life.
The consideration of victims by policy makers has taken a much larger role in influencing legislative change in the prevention of crime and the assistance of crime victims, however reforms based on victims remain largely localised to popularised cases and often fail to enter the trial side of the criminal justice system. Victims have the capacity to act as catalysts for reform, but their treatment and consideration in the criminal justice system continues to act more as an indicator of success by the system.
While the criminal justice system “does not. respond to every breach of the law,” there will still be significantly more cases waiting to be accepted into the court (Griffiths, 2015, p. 25). This is highly inefficient because only “few cases go to trial” anyway (Griffiths, 2016, p. 25).
“Restorative justice is an approach to crime and other wrongdoings that focuses on repairing harm and encouraging responsibility and involvement of the parties impacted by the wrong.” This quote comes from a leading restorative justice scholar named Howard Zehr. The process of restorative justice necessitates a shift in responsibility for addressing crime. In a restorative justice process, the citizens who have been affected by a crime must take an active role in addressing that crime. Although law professionals may have secondary roles in facilitating the restorative justice process, it is the citizens who must take up the majority of the responsibility in healing the pains caused by crime. Restorative justice is a very broad subject and has many other topics inside of it. The main goal of the restorative justice system is to focus on the needs of the victims, the offenders, and the community, and focus
Restorative Justice is an approach to the justice system that focuses on the needs of both the
Offenders are protected today by both the rule of law, ensuring that all offenders are treated equally, regardless of their age, sex or position in the community, and due process, which ensures that all offenders are given a fair trial with the opportunity to defend themselves and be heard (Williams, 2012). Beccaria’s emphasis on punishment being humane and non-violent has also carried through to modern day corrections. It is still the case today that offenders must only receive punishment that is proportionate to the crime they have committed and the punishment is determined by the law. The power of the judges and the magistrates to make decisions on punishment is guided by the legislation and they do not have the power to change the law (Ferrajoli,
Miscarriage of justice can be defined in many ways, but the simplest definition of the “miscarriage of justice is simply a failure to achieve the justice”. “Justice is about distribution, according persons fair shares and treatment”. It is not only restricted to the court system or penal system, it can occur anywhere, for example “on the streets when the Police unjustly exercise them conceive powers”. United kingdom’s history is full of the miscarriage of justice cases, which however has led to the lack of confidence in the justice system. Some of the reasons why miscarriages of justice occur are due to the human error, non-disclosure of relevant evidences, wrong confession due to the pressure from police and court and “Institutions are inadequate”.