How the Government’s legal aid cuts will affect victims of trafficking and domestic violence

Our system for dealing with these crimes is a shambles. In light of this, it is baffling that the Government is pursuing an approach to legal aid that even the Attorney General has refused to endorse.

We’re cracking down on immigrants. As I write this the UK Home Office’s Twitter feed is working itself into a frenzy over the arrest of some “suspected #immigrationoffenders”, posting invasive pictures of various people being nicked. And a few days ago Border Agency cops were accused of racially profiling people at tube stations.

The show of force will fizzle out. It always does, because the reality doesn’t match the perception. But while we have all this worthy endeavour, I trust we’ve not forgotten these words: “There are unacceptable levels of ignorance among police, social services and the UK Border Agency, which mean we fail victims of trafficking.”

Nor these: “An appalling outcome of such failure on the frontline is the fact that numerous victims of modern slavery are being prosecuted for offences they have committed as a result of being trafficked. This may include immigration offences or, in cases where people – often minors  – are trafficked into the UK to work in one of the thousands of British cannabis farms,  drugs offences...More must be done to ensure that vulnerable victims of modern slavery are not criminalised...Responsibility in government lies with the Minister for Immigration. This is wrong. Modern slavery is first and foremost a crime and not an immigration issue.”

These are the words of Iain Duncan Smith’s think tank, the Centre for Social Justice, which earlier this year produced a definitive report on this issue. As it makes clear (read from page 77 onwards), there is a massive conflict of interest in allowing the same authority to assess both whether someone needs help as a trafficking victim and how that person’s immigration status is going to pan out. It doesn’t help, of course, that victims of trafficking like women in brothels or children in cannabis farms, are often given false documents by their captors.

Our system for dealing with crimes like these is a shambles. Our Government has admitted there are failings itself, folding the wretched UK Border Authority back in house. It’s been the case for some time, but we’ve always offered some form of legal redress to those we’ve let down. In large part, we’ve been able to do this because we offer legal aid. But now the Government’s proposals suggest that legal aid for judicial reviews – which challenge the lawfulness of decisions made by public bodies – should be curtailed.

For charities working with victims of trafficking, the ongoing failings in the government’s approach are deeply worrying. Dr Russell Hargrave of Asylum Aid explains:

“Most victims of trafficking are terrified of the consequences if they ask for help. It’s difficult to exaggerate the hold that traffickers can have over them, so victims need to know there is support there when they need it. “But the current system falls way, way short. And instead of trying to improve the way people are treated, the government is restricting access to legal aid for anyone who needs to challenge the system’s myriad failings. I can’t see trafficking decisions improving, only more victims being abandoned to their fate”.

Trafficking is barely the start of it. Prossy Kakooza knows all too well how valuable legal aid can be. She fled Uganda after being horrifically assaulted due to her sexual orientation. She was violently raped by police officers and scalded with hot meat skewers. Her family bribed the guards to get her out of prison, but all of them apart from her mother wished to sacrifice her to “take the curse away”. Her mother managed to smuggle her to the United Kingdom.

The local GP in England was so horrified by the extent of her injuries that the police were called, and she received treatment for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. At first, the Home Office refused her asylum application: they acknowledged she was brutally raped and burnt because of the medical evidence, but have dismissed the appalling attacks as "the random actions of individuals", and stated she could be returned to a different town in Uganda. This ignored the fact that gay people throughout the country face the threat of life imprisonment, and that in Uganda a reference has to be provided by your previous village when you move: there would be no escape from persecution.

“The solicitor suggested to me by the Home Office was terrible,” she tells me. “She never picked up her phone. It was only once I got in touch with the Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit that I got a decent service.” Prossy’s appeal was eventually upheld. The stress of the process combined with the trauma she’d suffered lead to a breakdown and suicide attempts, but she pulled through, now lives in Manchester, and is one of the volunteers who runs the Lesbian Immigration Support Group.

Prossy’s appeal process was supported by thousands of people who heard her story. But under these new proposals it would never have happened. The Government will no longer pay anything until a Judicial Review has been approved by the High Court. In practice, no lawyer could afford to prepare and bring a complex trafficking case without knowing if they’ll ever be paid.

Another issue with the proposals is that anyone who has not been legally living in the UK for more than a year will no longer have recourse to legal aid in civil cases. Grace’s tale was provided to me by the charity Save Justice.  She was brought to the UK as a dependent on her husband’s visa. Her husband subjected her and her children to horrific physical and psychological abuse. She managed to get away from him, but he tracked her and the children down. She managed to make an application for a non-molestation order in the Family Courts. Under the proposals, Grace would have not been able to receive legal aid to apply for the order within her first year of being granted refugee status by the Home Office.

*

Last week, protesters gathered outside the Old Bailey for a noisy protest against what the Government is doing. Here are a few points the speakers made:

  • Sadiq Khan said without legal aid the Birmingham Six would be in prison, while the killers of Stephen Lawrence would be free.
     
  • Shauneen Lambe, a leading child welfare lawyer, said without legal aid hundreds of vulnerable teenagers will be at risk of harm or falling into prostitution. She invited the assembled to look at the inscription on the Old Bailey’s great facade: “Defend the children of the poor and punish the wrongdoer.” “I’ve no doubt,” she said, “the Government are the wrongdoer.”
     
  • Anne Hall, the mother of Daniel Roque Hall (whose case I covered here), said her son would probably be dead without legal aid.

So you have to ask why the Government is carrying out a policy that even the Attorney General has refused to endorse. Last November, Chris Grayling ordered an “immediate examination” of the legal aid system following the trial of Abu Hamza. Since then Save Justice has been attempting to use the Freedom of Information Act to find out the terms of reference for it.

To date the MoJ has refused to answer the question three times using section 35 of the Freedom of Information Act - basically saying that the grounds for the formulation of the policy need protecting. A review by the Information Commissioner’s Office has now been requested. But this has been going on since November last year, so how much "safe space" does Grayling need? Shouldn't this investigation be happening by now? Did he opportunistically use Abu Hamza as a stick to bash legal aid without thinking about the implications of criticising, er, the right to a fair trial, which is a pretty basic tenet of our law? Surely not.

This is barely an issue of left or right wing politics. Contrary to the boneheaded wailing of some self-professed right wingers this is simply an issue of basic humanity in a modern, civilised, nominally Christian country that doesn’t wish to be a pariah state.

UPDATE 06/08/2013 08:00

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said:

This Government is determined to tackle the trafficking and exploitation of vulnerable men and women. It is vital that victims of trafficking receive specialised support and counselling, which is why the Government now provides £3 million a year to help victims of this merciless exploitation. Funding these experts means that hundreds of trafficking victims have been given invaluable support and a real chance to recover, while our work to raise awareness of trafficking means we are getting better at identifying victims and going after those who profit from this human misery. The proposed legal aid reforms would not impact on trafficking victims in the way suggested. We are determined to bring down the cost of legal aid, but not at the expense of the most vulnerable. Contrary to suggestions here legal aid would continue to be available for the initial stages of a judicial review case, and where victims of trafficking were seeking to claim asylum they would be exempt from the proposed residence test. Those who did not meet this residence test would also be entitled to apply for exceptional funding. England and Wales has one of the most expensive legal aid systems in the world and our reforms intend to ensure we get best value for every penny of around £2 billion a year of taxpayers' money we spend on it. We have been very clear we are listening to views from the consultation and are now carefully considering all of the responses before taking final decisions.

The Ministry of Justice in London. Photograph: Getty Images

Alan White's work has appeared in the Observer, Times, Private Eye, The National and the TLS. As John Heale, he is the author of One Blood: Inside Britain's Gang Culture.

Daily Mail
Show Hide image

Who "speaks for England" - and for that matter, what is "England"?

The Hollywood producer Sam Gold­wyn once demanded, “Let’s have some new clichés.” The Daily Mail, however, is always happiest with the old ones.

The Hollywood producer Sam Gold­wyn once demanded, “Let’s have some new clichés.” The Daily Mail, however, is always happiest with the old ones. It trotted out Leo Amery’s House of Commons call from September 1939, “Speak for England”, for the headline on a deranged leader that filled a picture-free front page on David Cameron’s “deal” to keep Britain in the EU.

Demands that somebody or other speak for England have followed thick and fast ever since Amery addressed his call to Labour’s Arthur Greenwood when Neville Chamberlain was still dithering over war with Hitler. Tory MPs shouted, “Speak for England!” when Michael Foot, the then Labour leader, rose in the Commons in 1982 after Argentina’s invasion of the Falklands. The Mail columnist Andrew Alexander called on Clare Short to “speak for England” over the Iraq War in 2003. “Can [Ed] Miliband speak for England?” Anthony Barnett asked in this very magazine in 2013. (Judging by the 2015 election result, one would say not.) “I speak for England,” claimed John Redwood last year. “Labour must speak for England,” countered Frank Field soon afterwards.

The Mail’s invocation of Amery was misconceived for two reasons. First, Amery wanted us to wage war in Europe in support of Hitler’s victims in Poland and elsewhere and in alliance with France, not to isolate ourselves from the continent. Second, “speak for England” in recent years has been used in support of “English votes for English laws”, following proposals for further devolution to Scotland. As the Mail was among the most adamant in demanding that Scots keep their noses out of English affairs, it’s a bit rich of it now to state “of course, by ‘England’. . . we mean the whole of the United Kingdom”.

 

EU immemorial

The Mail is also wrong in arguing that “we are at a crossroads in our island history”. The suggestion that the choice is between “submitting to a statist, unelected bureaucracy in Brussels” and reclaiming our ancient island liberties is pure nonsense. In the long run, withdrawing from the EU will make little difference. Levels of immigration will be determined, as they always have been, mainly by employers’ demands for labour and the difficulties of policing the borders of a country that has become a leading international transport hub. The terms on which we continue to trade with EU members will be determined largely by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels after discussions with unelected bureaucrats in London.

The British are bored by the EU and the interminable Westminster arguments. If voters support Brexit, it will probably be because they then expect to hear no more on the subject. They will be sadly mistaken. The withdrawal negotiations will take years, with the Farages and Duncan Smiths still foaming at the mouth, Cameron still claiming phoney victories and Angela Merkel, François Hollande and the dreaded Jean-Claude Juncker playing a bigger part in our lives than ever.

 

An empty cabinet

Meanwhile, one wonders what has become of Jeremy Corbyn or, indeed, the rest of the shadow cabinet. The Mail’s “speak for England” leader excoriated him for not mentioning “the Number One subject of the hour” at PM’s Questions but instead asking about a shortage of therapeutic radiographers in the NHS. In fact, the NHS’s problems – almost wholly caused by Tory “reforms” and spending cuts – would concern more people than does our future in the EU. But radiographers are hardly headline news, and Corbyn and his team seem unable to get anything into the nation’s “any other business”, never mind to the top of its agenda.

Public services deteriorate by the day, George Osborne’s fiscal plans look increasingly awry, and attempts to wring tax receipts out of big corporations appear hopelessly inadequate. Yet since Christmas I have hardly seen a shadow minister featured in the papers or spotted one on TV, except to say something about Trident, another subject that most voters don’t care about.

 

Incurable prose

According to the Guardian’s admirable but (let’s be honest) rather tedious series celeb­rating the NHS, a US health-care firm has advised investors that “privatisation of the UK marketplace . . . should create organic and de novo opportunities”. I have no idea what this means, though it sounds ominous. But I am quite certain I don’t want my local hospital or GP practice run by people who write prose like that.

 

Fashionable Foxes

My home-town football team, Leicester City, are normally so unfashionable that they’re not even fashionable in Leicester, where the smart set mostly watch the rugby union team Leicester Tigers. Even when they installed themselves near the top of the Premier League before Christmas, newspapers scarcely noticed them.

Now, with the Foxes five points clear at the top and 7-4 favourites for their first title, that mistake is corrected and the sports pages are running out of superlatives, a comparison with Barcelona being the most improbable. Even I, not a football enthusiast, have watched a few matches. If more football were played as Leicester play it – moving at speed towards their opponents’ goal rather than aimlessly weaving pretty patterns in midfield – I would watch the game more.

Nevertheless, I recall 1963, when Leicester headed the old First Division with five games to play. They picked up only one more point and finished fourth, nine points adrift of the league winners, Everton.

 

Gum unstuck

No, I don’t chew toothpaste to stop me smoking, as the last week’s column strangely suggested. I chew Nicorette gum, a reference written at some stage but somehow lost (probably by me) before it reached print.

Editor: The chief sub apologises for this mistake, which was hers

Peter Wilby was editor of the Independent on Sunday from 1995 to 1996 and of the New Statesman from 1998 to 2005. He writes the weekly First Thoughts column for the NS.

This article first appeared in the 11 February 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The legacy of Europe's worst battle