There has been a steady drip drip campaign against legal aid reforms that will mean far more restrictions being placed on access to legal aid. This is mainly to do with dealing with a lack of government funding. Funding restrictions on family disputes will mean that only on cases of domestic violence, child marriage or forced marriage will legal aid still be available.
Entitled a Manifesto for Family Justice , a manifesto that only mentions women and has no groups representing male victims included (probably because they were not asked as unsurprisngly according to the press release domestic abuse only happens to women - usual story of institutional sexism), raises a number of points of concern and interest. One potentially positive for men and two potentially negative based on the law of unintended consequences and unequal justice.
Without going into the why's or wherefore's in detail, but restrictions on legal aid will in the main help fathers as it evens up the playing field. As we know vast numbers, who despite going through mediation, face the entrenched legal aid funded (ex) wives/partners who want to fight and sometimes lie to stop their children being able to have regular contact with their father.
The man goes bankrupt paying legal fees while the ex racks up the fees on legal aid, and still there are the demands for CSA payments.
So the changes could be a good thing as it will stop the insidious practice of women deliberately going to court because of her hatred of the father of her children.
However, and this is a point picked up before by the Chairman of the Bar Council, Peter Lodder QC, in January. If legal aid is restricted to a certain defined area in family law cases then the law of unintended consequences and human nature means that any unscrupulous and greedy solicitor will advise people to try to steer their case that way so it becomes eligible for legal aid.
So some women, because they want legal aid, will be steered towards making false allegations of domestic abuse against men. Even more so then those that already do in the family courts.
The Manifesto also picks up the effect of restricting legal aid to just the alleged victims of domestic abuse meaning they will be then cross-examined by the perpetrators. This is an importnat yet secondary point as this does not get round the central point of actually encouraging false allegations in the first place - a scourge of the family courts and domestic abuse generally.
The main point on the restriction and this is the real double whammy for men is that not only will the restrictions encourage false allegations, men if they are the ones accused will not be elgible for legal aid (see answer 80 in Parliament here). This is why they would be undertaking the cross examination because they cannot afford a lawyer and cannot get the legal aid.
As Peter Lodder QC says in Parliament: "In court, someone who may be facing a false allegation will have to defend himself—it will probably be himself—and will risk losing everything: children, liberty, home, you name it. They will have to defend themselves in that circumstance. We do not see how that can possibly advance access to justice."
Even if he does have the opportunity for cross-examining his ex, he is unlikely to be as good as a solicitor or barrister trained in this. Men will lose.
One point that is strange and shows how people or an organisation may be influenced and lobbied to change or soften a view is about the manifesto. It is created by the Bar Council whose Chairman is Brian Lodder QC but he is the one who made the perfectly reasonable comments to the Standard in January and in Parliament. Why is the issue about encouraging false allegations not in the manifesto nor the fact that men on the end of a false allegation will not have access to legal aid (it mentions this indirectly on the cross examination issue but why not directly)? Why the sudden silence??
Why was this not included - we know Women's Aid and CAADA who signed up to the manifesto would not be pleased to sign up to document that suggested false allegations even existed as that does not fit with their women=good, men=bad school of thought. So they did they have influence on it and wanted those issues dropped before agreeing to sign up?
While the legal aid reforms on the one hand seem to be advantageous to fathers as it evens up the playing field when arranging custody and access arrangements, the scourge of the false allegation and the lack of support for men to defend themselves show these are dangerous and are likely to damage men further.
Posted by Skimmington
Media coverage - Guardian, Guardian 2, Guardian 3
Recent Comments