MPs have warned that tough access to legal aid is creating an “unacceptably high risk of miscarriages of justice”, with as many as half of defendants facing prison in magistrates’ court cases forced to appear without legal representation.
The Justice Committee found the financial eligibility threshold for criminal legal aid in the magistrates’ court to be “shockingly low”.
The means-test threshold has not been uprated since 2009, despite prices rising by 64 per cent, meaning even someone earning the national minimum wage may be deemed ineligible.
The committee has urged the Government to increase these thresholds to reflect inflation and the cost of living.
Chair of the Justice Committee Andy Slaughter said: “Legal aid is fundamental to ensuring people regardless of means can enforce their rights and access justice. The committee’s report lays bare stark evidence that too many individuals who need legal advice and representation are simply unable to obtain it.
“Across both criminal and civil legal aid eligibility has failed to keep pace with the rising cost of living, with capacity reducing, provision increasingly patchy or non-existent and future sustainability in question.
“Put simply, declining availability of legal aid and increasing levels of self-representation is creating an unacceptably high risk of miscarriages of justice and undermines the efficient administration of the courts.”
Last month, a UK artificial intelligence-powered law firm secured a landmark court victory, with an AI lawyer building the successful case.
Garfield AI, the UK’s first regulated AI legal firm, assisted freelance HR consultant Tamires Camal Taquidir in recovering £7,000 in unpaid fees.
The win followed a three-hour trial at Wandsworth County Court in London.
An AI lawyer from Garfield AI managed all aspects, from witness statements to trial preparation, before a human barrister presented the arguments in court.
“The potential this unlocks for access to justice in civil claims that would otherwise not be worth litigating is immense and exciting,” Dominic Li, who served as the human barrister in court, wrote in a post to LinkedIn.
“The statements of case, witness statements and bundle of documents produced by Garfield gave me a solid foundation from which to prepare cross-examination and closing submissions. But this was not a case that could be won on paper.
“My experience suggested that while AI can now do the heavy lifting of preparation competently and at a fraction of the usual cost, the advocacy that wins a contested trial is still done by a human on their feet in court.”
