levo

Access to Justice and Funding

Evaluating access to justice after the 2012 reforms

  • 3 things to know
  • AS Unit 1

Overview

Recall questions on legal aid spending after 2013, litigants in person and the false economy argument, the 2019 review, the UNISON ruling, and the Commission on Justice in Wales.

What you need to know

Answer each one before you reveal it.

Your recallNot started
Key term

What effect did the 2012 legal aid reforms have on the number of unrepresented parties?

Key term

Why is a rise in litigants in person described as a false economy?

Evaluation

Give two arguments in defence of the 2012 reforms.

Questions from this subtopic

Each one with the model answer underneath.

  1. 1

    State the aims of the 2012 legal aid reforms.

    Model answer

    The stated aims were to reduce the overall cost of legal aid, to target funding on the cases of highest priority, to discourage unnecessary litigation, and to deliver better value for the taxpayer.

  2. 2

    What happened to legal aid spending and case volumes after 2013?

    Model answer

    Spending fell substantially, and the number of cases funded fell by a much larger proportion still, with advice on social welfare law collapsing almost entirely.

  3. 3

    What effect did the reforms have on the number of unrepresented parties?

    Model answer

    The number of litigants in person rose sharply, especially in family cases, where both parties are now frequently unrepresented.

  4. 4

    Why is a rise in litigants in person described as a false economy?

    Model answer

    Hearings take longer, cases are less well presented, more are adjourned and judges must do work the parties' lawyers would have done, so savings on legal aid are partly cancelled out by costs elsewhere.

  5. 5

    Give two arguments in defence of the 2012 reforms.

    Model answer

    Public money is finite and had to be concentrated where liberty, safety or the family home is at stake, and moving private family disputes towards mediation is better for the families concerned as well as cheaper.

  6. 6

    What did the government's review of the reforms conclude in 2019?

    Model answer

    It accepted that some intended effects had not been achieved, that early advice had been lost and that people had been unable to obtain help, and it announced further work and pilot schemes rather than reversing the changes.

Other ways to work this

The same content, four other ways.

What is inside Levo

Six ways to work the same material.

1Closed book
2Open book
3Closed book

The 3-step method, run for you

Answer cold, learn it, then prove it stuck. Levo tracks the jump between your first attempt and your last.

Law Making in Wales and the UK
Delegated Legislation
Statutory Interpretation
Judicial Precedent

Cram a whole paper in one sitting

Sort every topic into what you know and what you do not, then drill only the weak ones.

Roles v Nathan ( ).
196319411945

Blank Blitz makes facts automatic

Rapid timed gap-fills on the terms and numbers you need to recall without thinking.

AThe defendant owed the victim a duty of care and breached it.
BThe breach carried a reasonably foreseeable risk of death.
CThe breach caused the death.

Build It gets the exam shape right

Assemble a full-mark answer from its marking points, in the order an examiner wants them.

Pecuniary loss is financial and measurable.
TrueFalse

Test It catches misconceptions

Spot the fault in a statement. The traps are the mistakes students actually make.

721941163128510

Brain Breaks between sessions

Short focus games to reset attention, so the next set lands better than the last.

Every question in Access to Justice and Funding, on a schedule.

Attempt a question from memory, write the correct version, then attempt it again. Levo records the jump between your first attempt and your last, and brings each question back on the day you are due to forget it.

Or £46 a year, about £3.83 a month. Cancel anytime.