Legal move over welfare changes

2 July 2011 Last updated at 07:56 GMT Disability Living Allowance is paid to 3.2 million people A group representing 270 disability charities is launching legal action to obtain a judicial review of the government's plans for welfare changes.

Ministers want to replace Disability Living Allowance with Personal Independence Payment, saving ?2bn.

But Disability Alliance said ministers had not properly assessed the negative impact of the changes and that they did not comply with the Equality Act.

The government said the plans were fair and would protect those needing help.

'Overwhelming evidence'

Under the proposals, benefits such as mobility allowances for people in care homes would be stopped.

The care component of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) at the lowest rate of just under ?20 a week, which is paid to 650,000 people, would also go.

Disability Alliance said despite providing the government with overwhelming evidence of the negative impact it said the measures would have there has been no significant alteration to the Welfare Reform Bill.

Neil Coyle, from Disability Alliance, said: "We feel forced into taking action now. We have asked the DWP [Department for Work and Pensions] to answer our queries and concerns that we have been raising over the course of the past year.

"Disabled people are telling us what the potential impact of government cuts might be. The DWP has not answered.

"We feel we have no other option but to take action at this stage, which may end up with a judicial review of the government's DLA cuts."

More than half of the disabled people who use the DLA to support them in work would have to give up work if it was cut, Mr Coyle said.

"For many disabled people it helps to pay for an adapted vehicle, so if you can't afford to run a vehicle and that's what you're using the DLA for, there's a strong chance you won't be able to continue in work," he said.

"One in seven disabled people have told us that without DLA they won't be able to manage their health condition or impairment and they're more likely to have hospitalised periods, which cost far more to the taxpayer than paying, for example,?19.55 a week, which is the bit of the DLA expenditure the government is targeting for ending."

'Creating concern'

Ministers said they were listening to the concerns of the disability sector and the process was still ongoing.

Minister for Disabled People Maria Miller said: "We are still only part the way through this process.

"I think some of the concerns that have been expressed are second guessing what the outcome will be and probably creating a great deal of concern where perhaps there is no necessity to have that concern."

Disability Living Allowance is paid to 3.2 million people, including 1.8 million of working age.

View the original article here

Stabbing burglars 'will be legal'

29 June 2011 Last updated at 12:17 GMT Justice Secretary Ken Clarke: "People are entitled to use whatever force is necessary to protect themselves and their homes"

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has said a householder who knifes a burglar will not have committed a criminal offence under plans to clarify the law on self-defence in England.

He told the BBC people were entitled to use "whatever force necessary" to protect themselves and their homes.

David Cameron recently said the issue should be put "beyond doubt".

Mr Clarke has also said he is committed to axing indeterminate prison sentences despite opposition from many Tory MPs.

Mr Clarke has come under attack over proposed changes to sentencing policy but has denied making a series of U-turns on key elements amid pressure from Tory MPs and sections of the media.

He said indeterminate sentences - where prisoners can be held beyond their original release date if they still pose a danger to society - had been an "unmitigated disaster" since they had been introduced by Tony Blair

He suggested an alternative to them would be in place within two years.

Mr Clarke will defend his criminal justice agenda when proposed sentencing and legal aid changes are debated by MPs later - although no plans to change indeterminate sentences are currently included in planned legislation.

On people's rights to self-defence in their homes, Mr Clarke said there was "constant doubt" about the issue and the proposed legislation would make this "much clearer".

Under the terms of the 2008 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, homeowners who use "reasonable force" to protect themselves against intruders should not be prosecuted, providing they use no more force than is absolutely necessary.

'Absolute right'

But the government is set to place people's right to defend their property, long present in common law, in statute law.

"It's quite obvious that people are entitled to use whatever force is necessary to protect themselves and their homes," Mr Clarke said.

Continue reading the main story

We will make it quite clear you can hit the burglar with the poker if he's in the house and you have a perfect defence when you do so”

End Quote Ken Clarke Asked about what this would mean in practice, he said: "If an old lady finds she's got an 18 year old burgling her house and she picks up a kitchen knife and sticks it in him she has not committed a criminal offence and we will make that clear."

He added: "We will make it quite clear you can hit the burglar with the poker if he's in the house and you have a perfect defence when you do so."

Mr Clarke said legal protection would not extend to anyone shooting a burglar in the back when they were fleeing or "getting their friends together to beat them up".

"We all know what we mean when we say a person has an absolute right to defend themselves and their home and reasonable force.

"Nobody should prosecute and nobody should ever convict anybody who takes those steps."

The BBC's Political Correspondent Ross Hawkins said it remained to be seen how judges would interpret any change in the law when cases came to court.

Legal aid

Mr Clarke also made clear his determination to repeal indeterminate public protection prison sentences.

While some people had to stay in prison for an unspecified amount of time, he said the six-year old policy was "filling up" prisons and it was "indefensible" that some prisoners did not know how long they would have to serve and when they might be considered for release.

Ministers dropped plans to offer suspects pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity a 50% reduction in their jail sentences following a public consultation but Mr Clarke suggested there would be no backtracking on this matter.

Although he would consider carefully any changes, he said more prisoners should get "fixed-length" sentences.

Tory MP Philip Davies has said indeterminate sentences - 6,000 of which have been handed down - have reduced crime and Mr Clarke's stance on the issue "shows beyond all doubt that re-offending is not his priority".

A No 10 spokesman said the government was looking at the system "with a view to replacing it".

MPs will also debate the government's plans to cut legal aid in England and Wales at the second reading of Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.

Under the plans, aimed at saving ?300m from the ?2.1bn legal aid bill, people will not be eligible for legal aid in a far broader range of civil cases than at present.

But they have come under fire from lawyers and campaign groups, who claim they will lead to more crime and penalise victims.

View the original article here

Mounting concerns over legal aid

29 June 2011 Last updated at 09:50 GMT The proposals focus on legal aid in civil rather than criminal cases The government's plans to cut legal aid in England and Wales return to Parliament later, amid opposition from lawyers and campaigners.

The Ministry of Justice aims to cut ?300m from the ?2.1bn legal aid bill.

Under the plans, people will not be eligible for legal aid in a far broader range of civil cases than at present.

The Law Society said the bill would hit the "weak and vulnerable", but Justice Secretary Ken Clarke said legal aid funded some unnecessary litigation.

Under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, ministers say they want to end legal aid for:

Private family law cases, such as divorce and custody battlesClinical negligence claimsEmployment and education lawImmigration, other than where someone is detainedSome debt, housing and benefit issues.

The government says that domestic violence cases will still receive legal aid and it intends to expand the definition to include mental and sexual abuse.

Mr Clarke has told MPs that the current system "too often encourages people to bring their problems before the courts, even when they are not the right place to provide good solutions and sometimes for litigation that people paying out of their own pocket would not have pursued."

He added that legal aid had expanded into areas beyond its original scope.

Continue reading the main story Norman Smith Chief political correspondent, BBC Radio 4

Whatever the unhappiness on the Tory right - at Ken Clarke's revised plans on sentencing - don't expect any further U-turns by the man in the Hush Puppies.

For a start, he is already facing a ?140m black hole in his budget after his decision last week to scrap plans to allow offenders up to 50% off their sentences if they plead guilty early.

The justice secretary simply doesn't have the money for any more concessions.

Secondly, temperamentally, Mr Clarke is in no mood for any more climbdowns. Indeed, one suspects he rather enjoys his bust-ups with the Tory right.

But there is also a bigger problem.

Mr Clarke strongly believes we send too many people to prison and that it costs too much.

On that basic belief he will not give ground.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Clarke said: "Lots of people think we should have more and more prisons, and more and more prisoners, and there's lots of lawyers who say we should spend more and more money on lawyers.

"[But] we are funding litigation, firstly unnecessarily in less serious matters where really the taxpayers shouldn't pay, and we're also funding litigation where adversarial lawyers are not the best way of sorting out a serious dispute or serious family quarrel."

But Linda Lee, president of the Law Society, said people who were denied access to justice may take the law into their own hands and "civil issues become criminal issues".

"The people who will suffer are the weak and the vulnerable," she said.

"It will be the babies seriously injured in accidents during their birth, for whom there will be no civil legal aid to secure compensation.

"It will be the woman looking after her disabled mother, who can no longer get advice when her carer's benefit is wrongly stopped.

"It will be the man whose ex-wife will no longer let him see his children."

The society, backed by other campaigners and charities, is publishing an analysis of the bill, which says it will end up costing more than it initially saves.

"The prime minister and the government want to reduce crime and the deficit," she said.

"If they force the bill through Parliament in its current form, they risk the opposite. The bill focuses on only short-term budget-gain and not the long-term consequences.

"Ministers must start making the link between cuts to civil legal aid and crime."

The Law Centres Federation says that at least 18 of 52 centres serving poor communities could be forced to close because of the cuts.

'Last resort'

On Monday, Baroness Hale, one of the UK's Supreme Court Justices, became the most high-profile legal figure to question the government's proposals.

In a speech she said the reforms would have a "disproportionate effect upon the poorest and most vulnerable in society."

Continue reading the main story Some asylum casesMental health casesDebt and housing matters where someone's home is at immediate risk Family law cases involving domestic violence, forced marriage or child abduction"If we really want to spend less on lawyers we have to be prepared to spend more on a very different style of court from the ones which we are used to," she said.

"We have to be prepared to spend money on initial advice and assistance schemes because that is where most problems are solved.

"Courts are and should be a last resort but they should be a last resort which is accessible to all, rich and poor alike.

"The Big Society will be the big loser if everyone does not believe that the law is there for them."

Bar Council chairman Peter Lodder said it was a "much-peddled myth" that the legal aid system in England and Wales was more expensive than elsewhere in Europe.

But the justice secretary said the system encouraged lengthy, acrimonious and sometimes unnecessary court proceedings at taxpayers' expense and that it could not be compared with other systems of legal aid around the world.

View the original article here

Salmond attack on legal figures

15 June 2011 Last updated at 14:33 GMT Alex Salmond has raised concern over the role of the Supreme Court in Scots law A spokesman for Alex Salmond has said he has "nothing to add" to a magazine article in which the first minister attacked several Scots legal figures.

Mr Salmond accused Lord Hope, deputy president of the UK Supreme Court, of "extreme" decisions.

And he said the prominent solicitor Tony Kelly was making "an incredibly comfortable living" from representing the human rights of prisoners.

Mr Salmond made the attack in an article for Holyrood magazine.

It came amid an on-going row over the role of the Supreme Court in criminal cases north of the border, which the Scottish government says is undermining the independence of the Scots legal system.

The court has the ability to rule on cases where Scots law conflicts with human rights legislation.

Attacking Lord Hope, a Scottish judge who sits on the Supreme Court, Mr Salmond told the magazine: "All I would say to Lord Hope is that I probably know a wee bit about the legal system and he probably knows a wee bit about politics.

Continue reading the main story Brian Taylor Political editor, BBC Scotland

It seems probable that Mr Salmond's rhetoric will encourage the Supreme Court itself to be yet more minimalist still in the scope of its involvement in Scottish criminal law involvement.

Equally, it should be borne in mind that this is very far from an ordinary political complaint for a Nationalist leader.

Yes, it is seemingly about dry legal structures.

But for Alex Salmond, the Nationalist with the biggest mandate in his party's history, it is fundamental.

"But politics and the law intertwine, and the political consequences of Lord Hope's judgements are extreme and when the citizens of Scotland understandably vent their fury about the prospect of some of the vilest people on the planet getting lots of money off the public purse, they don't go chapping at Lord Hope's door, they ask their parliament what they are doing about it."

Mr Salmond also singled out Professor Kelly, a well-known human rights lawyer and visiting law professor.

He said: "There is not a single person, outwith Professor Kelly, who was the instigator of many of the actions, that believes that the judicial system is there to serve their interests and to make sure they can make an incredibly comfortable living by trailing around the prison cells and other establishments of Scotland trying to find what might be construed as a breach of human rights of an unlimited liability back to 1999, and that is what we were faced with."

Lawyers acting for Prof Kelly said he would not be making any immediate statement.

Scottish Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie hit out at Mr Salmond, saying the first minister now had to do some "serious damage control" following his remarks.

"Alex Salmond is making himself look a fool with these deeply personal and blistering attacks on one of Scotland's most senior judges," said Mr Rennie

"Scotland does not want a first minister who uses such tawdry and childish language, leaving Scotland looking blinkered and insular."

Labour justice spokeswoman Johann Lamont said: "Of course there are issues to be resolved over the role of the UK Supreme Court, but they are not as contentious as Alex Salmond is trying to make out.

"It can be done through mature diplomacy, negotiation and proper debate."

Tory leader Annabel Goldie added: "Alex Salmond has ignored the key issues and chosen to be subsumed by rhetorical bile.

"He has also ignored that the SNP are enthusiastic advocates of the European Court of Human Rights and its incorporation into Scots law."

Conviction quashed

The Scottish government has appointed a group of legal experts to look into the Supreme Court issue after a ruling in the case of Nat Fraser, who was jailed for life in 2003 after being convicted of murdering his wife, Arlene, in Elgin.

Having exhausted the appeal process at home, the 52-year-old won an appeal in the Supreme Court to have his conviction quashed.

The judges remitted the case to the Scottish Court of Criminal Appeal. Last week the Crown said it accepted the quashing of the conviction but was seeking a retrial, a move which is opposed by the defence.

The UK government's senior legal adviser in Scotland, Advocate General Lord Wallace, has defended the role of the UK Supreme Court in Scots law.

He said people across the UK must have their human rights protected at the same level.

A spokesman for Mr Salmond said the article "speaks for itself" and that he had "nothing to add".

View the original article here