It is clear from the judgement published yesterday, in the judicial review case brought by Rights of Women (RoW), the regulations on qualifying for legal aid are failing many victims of domestic violence. What is bitterly disappointing is that the Judges in the case, Lord Justice Fulford and Mrs Justice Lang DBE, decided that this did not contradict what parliament had intended in the main statute, (the Legal aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act).     While legal aid for private law family cases was cut from the scope of the scheme by the LASPO Act, it was accepted by all of the political parties when the legislation was debated that an exception would be made for victims of domestic violence. There were though disagreements over criteria for qualifying for help. Significant concessions were made by the government on this criteria to get the legislation approved by parliament. However, the regulations, which set out the rules for qualifying for legal aid, were approved in secondary legislation. These were not subject to the same parliamentary scrutiny and debate as the main statute.     In the House of Lords Labour’s Baroness Scotland, the former Attorney General,  with strong support from the politically independent cross bench peers, was narrowly defeated in her attempt to stop the government imposing a two year time-limit on evidence of domestic violence to qualify for legal aid. Her amendment  was debated in April 2012 and  was voted on three times  by peers, in what is know as ping-pong between the Commons and the Lords. The vote was eventually tied at 238 a piece and under parliamentary convention this meant the government won the day. As the amendment was being debated a third time a majority for it would have meant the government would have had to accept it or, scrap the entire bill.     The RoW judicial review has its roots in this parliamentary debate, the two year rule is now included in qualifying regulations. Assurances were given by the government that domestic violence victims would receive legal aid in family cases. RoW argues that there is a gap between what parliament intended and the reality of what was subsequently approved in the secondary legislation.     In the judgement the Court accepts that the regulations are inflexible and “may well exclude meritorious applications.” The judgement also concedes that RoW has shown “a good arguable case” that some victims of serious domestic violence are not able to fulfil the evidence requirements set-out in the regulations (see para 38 of the judgement).  However, in essence, the Court finds that this is what the government intended and so RoW’s argument fails.     LAG understands that RoW has decided to appeal this decision and, presumably, the Law Society will be continuing its financial backing of the case so that they can do so. Yesterday’s judgement needs to be challenged as it seems to say that yes the regulations fail victims of domestic violence, but this is legal. Whether they are found to be lawful or not, LAG argues that the current position is neither politically or morally acceptable and that the government should act now to protect victims of domestic violence.   Steve Hynes, Director, LAG   Pic: RoW and other supporters demonstrate outside the Royal Courts of Justice last year