Women's Views on News |
| Posted: 14 May 2013 08:46 AM PDT
Young Legal Aid Lawyers (YLAL) is a group of lawyers who are committed to practising in those areas of law, both criminal and civil, which have traditionally been publicly funded. Its members include students, paralegals, trainee solicitors, pupil barristers and qualified junior lawyers based throughout England and Wales. YLAL believes that the provision of good quality publicly funded legal help is essential to protecting the interests of the vulnerable in society and upholding the rule of law. The campaign involves raising awareness of the importance of legal aid through blogging, and engaging with those charities whose membership is particularly affected by cuts in legal aid; lobbying MPs and Peers on the issue; and monitoring the impact of cuts as they happen, in order to influence future policy. The legal aid system was introduced after World War Two as one of the pillars of the welfare state, providing a safety net for those who could not afford to pay for legal assistance. It provides a vital safety net, ensuring that individuals are able to enforce their legal rights, regardless of their income. However, this safety net has come under repeated attacks by successive governments determined to curtail public spending on legal aid, often at the expense of access to justice. The current round of cuts to legal aid is primarily contained within the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). One of the main consequences of LASPO is that individuals will no longer be able to access free legal help for many important issues including welfare benefits advice, immigration appeals and family law disputes such as contact over children. This will leave many individuals without access to legal advice unless they can afford to pay privately. In addition, funding cuts mean that many law centres, advice centres and high street solicitors are starting to cut back services or even close down, meaning that many areas of the country will be left without any provision for free legal advice. The inevitable result of the legal aid cuts is that thousands of people, especially the most poor and vulnerable, will be denied access to justice. At the moment, the focus of YLAL’s campaign is on monitoring the impact of these cuts, so they can let everyone, including the politicians, know just how damaging they are. So if you have a story to tell about how you, or someone you know, has been affected by the cuts in legal aid, then let YLAL know. You can email them here. You can also sign a petition asking the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) not to proceed with plans to reduce access to justice by depriving citizens of legal aid or the right to representation by the solicitor of their choice. Or write to or email your MP expressing your concerns. For help with that, click here. Get #saveukjustice trending on Twitter every Friday morning to spread the word about the proposals.  |
| The end of divorce for victims of domestic abuse? Posted: 14 May 2013 06:20 AM PDT
Does the introduction of legal aid reforms to family law cases by the government on 1 April 2013 mean the end of divorce as a way out for victims of domestic abuse? In May 2012, the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LAPSO) came into force. On 1 April 2013 the Act was reformed, bringing significant changes to the legal aid system in family law cases, and removing legal aid as an option for many in cases of divorce. Whilst drastic changes have been made in terms of eligibility for cases of child contact and divorce proceedings, an individual is still able to claim legal aid if they can provide evidence of the existence of domestic abuse within their relationship. On first reading, this appears to be a positive aspect to the changes. But if you are a victim of domestic abuse, is the government really throwing you a lifeline by allowing legal aid claims to be made in this instance? Take a closer look at the figures cited by the government on issues of violence against women. 'Around 1.2 million women suffer domestic abuse, over 400,000 women are sexually assaulted, 60,000 women are raped and thousands more stalked each year. 'These crimes are often hidden away behind closed doors, with the victim suffering in silence. 'Fewer than 1 in 4 people who suffer abuse at the hands of their partner – and only around 1 in 10 women who experience serious sexual assault – report it to the police.' These figures are taken from the gov.uk website which focuses on policy making. These figures were published on 26 March 2013. The amendments to the LAPSO Act 2012 came into force only a few days later on 1 April 2013. Look more closely at the amendments and see how they sit alongside the figures quoted by the government. Crucially – and less than one week after the government acknowledged the large number of women suffering abuse at the hands of their partners – women seeking to divorce their partners on grounds of domestic abuse will now need to provide evidence of domestic abuse before they will be offered any financial assistance to help dissolve the marriage. The government has just explicitly said that fewer than one in four people will report abuse to the police; is the onus of proving that abuse as a means of funding your escape, truly the avenue the government has devised to help victims leave abusive relationships? As incomprehensible as it sounds, it appears so. From 1 April 2013, in order for a divorce from an abusive partner to be funded by legal aid, victims will need to provide one of the following specified forms of evidence in order to satisfy the government that they are indeed a victim of domestic violence: ‘Finding of fact by the court that they are a victim of domestic violence ‘An unspent conviction or caution against an individual for a domestic violence offence ‘Criminal proceedings for domestic violence that have not yet concluded ‘Protective injunctions in place such as a non-molestation order, an occupation order or a restraining order in the preceding two years ‘Medical evidence from a registered GP who will assert that the victim has presented to them with injuries consistent with domestic abuse in the preceding two years ‘Written confirmation from a domestic violence support agency that in the preceding two years a person was admitted for 24 hours or more to a refuge due to domestic violence ‘Written confirmation from social services which states that in the preceding two years the victim was assessed as being, or at risk of being a victim of domestic abuse ‘Letter from a Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference chair confirming that the individual is at high risk of domestic violence and that a protective plan has been put in place in the preceding two years ‘The police have issued a caution against the perpetrator for a domestic violence offence in the preceding two years ‘The perpetrator is on a current order or one has been granted one for domestic violence offences in the preceding two years ‘An undertaking has been given to the court in place of an injunction order within a family relationship in the preceding two years but excluding cross undertakings’ When you first see this list, it appears to provide the victim with a number of options. In reality though, the number of practical options available to victims caught up in the mechanics of an abusive relationship are very few. The first option, for instance, requires private funding to attend court and to be legally represented. If a victim is considering an application for legal aid this is unlikely to be something they can afford to do. The remaining options also prove difficult if a victim has not disclosed the abuse to anyone else – as is so often the case. Home Office Circular 003/2013 defines domestic violence and abuse as 'Any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are or have been intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality. ‘This can encompass but is not limited to the following types of abuse: psychological, physical, sexual, financial emotional 'Controlling behaviour is: a range of acts designed to make a person subordinate and/or dependent by isolating them from sources of support, exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance and escape and regulating their everyday behaviour. ‘Coercive behaviour is: an act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten their victim.' But if a victim has not previously reported the abuse to anyone, the remaining options are also not available to her. Acknowledging abuse can take place over a number of years, as abuse doesn't necessarily take place on a frequent basis. The LASPO definition of domestic violence is any incident, or pattern of incidents, of controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (whether psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional) between individuals who are associated with each other. The very definition of what constitutes abuse, as provided by the government, describes behaviour which isolates victims 'from sources of support'. It is not uncommon for perpetrators to control victims by making it nigh on impossible for them to seek support. They will isolate them from their friends and family and withhold money to prevent them from socialising or having any reason to leave the house. In such a situation, how will it be possible to provide the evidence listed in the government's legal aid reforms? The reforms make it difficult to understand how it is possible for a victim who does not have the means to fund it privately to divorce a perpetrator of domestic violence and abuse. It appears that the effect of the amendments will be to completely trap a victim in an abusive relationship – and all this by a government which professes to be 'determined to support victims in reporting these crimes, and to make sure perpetrators are brought to justice.' The legal aid reforms appear to focus predominantly on physical violence – yet the LAPSO definition clearly states domestic abuse can take many forms. Victims can be so afraid of their partner they do not tell anyone, making obtaining 'objective evidence' as necessitated by the new legal aid reforms, very difficult. Given the complex nature of domestic abuse cases, it seems unreasonable to have placed a two-year time limit on a large number of the possible evidential options available to the abused partner. Even where a protective order has been granted it must have been within the last two years. It often takes far longer than two years for a victim of domestic abuse to develop the courage needed to seek support or report the issue to anyone. Often the only form of possible evidence may be a report obtained from a GP. But it seems the government has not properly considered what this means for a victim of domestic abuse. Although, with that evidence secured, the victim may be entitled to legal aid for the divorce proceedings, very often the cost involved, which can be upwards of £50, is not something the victim can afford. The government has boldly declared that 'We all must do much more to prevent violence against women and girls happening at all…', but is it? When it comes to preventing further domestic abuse and violence – to enabling a victim to permanently leave an abusive marriage and to break free from an abusive partner – the government appears to want to hinder the process, not support it. And we have to conclude that with these new family law legal aid reforms, the government has made it even harder for those victims of domestic abuse who cannot afford to fund a private case for divorce to find safety away from their abuser.  |
| MPs call for more women in ICT Posted: 14 May 2013 02:09 AM PDT
Chi Onwurah, Labour MP for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, led a debate about women and ICT in the House of Commons recently. Addressing what she described as "such an important issue", she said that only 6 per cent of information and communications technology (ICT) jobs in the UK games industry are held by women and that between 2001 and 2011 the proportion of women in technology jobs decreased from 22 per cent to 17 per cent. Moreover, the percentage of women taking computing A-levels declined from 12 per cent in 2004 to 8 per cent in 2011, meaning that in a typical computing class there is one girl for every eleven boys. Onwurah said that "the lack of women in ICT is a scandal but it is also a huge loss". Not only does the nation lose out economically and on desperately-needed talent, but the gender pay gap increases as technology professionals tend to earn more than those in other sectors. Onwurah, who worked in ICT as an engineer for 23 years, said that employers are vital for boosting the number of women in the industry. As well as helping female employees advance in their their career and their skills, they can work with schools to encourage girls to study ICT, showcase female role models and challenge "our culture, which socialises girls to think that ICT is not for them". Last year, Onwurah wrote to ten leading employers in the engineering and technology sector and found that while many are taking steps to improve the situation, a lot more could be done. "Most firms said that the main problem was a lack of qualified female candidates in ICT," she said. "ARM was the most forthright when asked what private or public sector initiatives firms found useful. “It said most initiatives that directly address the issue are clearly failing at a national level and make little difference." Onwurah believes that the government's lack of support and the absence of any framework to help assess the progress made towards attracting more girls into ICT are responsible for this failure. "While there are many initiatives, the challenge is to know how well they are working and how to help them to work better, yet I fear that the government are failing to take up that challenge. "The government ended funding for UKRC, [the UK Resource Centre] the organisation dedicated to supporting girls and women into ICT," she said. Onwurah added: "They have reduced support for, and undermined, careers advice, which is the key way of helping into ICT those many girls who have no direct contact with ICT professionals as part of their background." In response, education minister Elizabeth Truss said: "We are giving computing a new impetus through a challenging new curriculum, sustained support for teaching training and robust qualifications." Truss hopes that the new curriculum, under which primary school students will learn about coding and programming, will make ICT "a universal subject that is attractive to boys and girls alike". She went on to say: "Our focus on ensuring that teachers are trained up so that they understand the career opportunities in ICT and know what programming is and how to teach it to young children will be critical in shaping the future and in shaping young girls' expectations of their potential." Many MPs expressed their concern at the government's plans. Seema Malhotra, Labour MP for Feltham and Heston, called for a "cross-government strategy that involves the education system as well as the Department for Culture, Media and Sport". Julie Hilling, Labour MP for Bolton West, said that the Department for Education needed to do more to "encourage interaction" between young people and employers as they "could then make decisions much earlier about whether ICT was a career they would be interested in". The debate took place a day before Girls in ICT Day, which is celebrated every year on the fourth Thursday in April. This international day is backed by member states of the International Telecommunication Union and aims to encourage girls and women to consider joining the ICT sector. Celebrations this year included a European parliament debate about women in ICT and a wearable technology event in London that was hosted by Little Miss Geek and supported by Dell and Microsoft.  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Women's Views on News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |