As the Marilyn Stowe blog states, cuts to legal aid are leaving people stressed and powerless. It is claimed that the cuts in the family law area are jeopardising the rule of law and are hurting the most vulnerable people disproportionately.
The Public Law Project has looked at the value and effects of Judicial Review: one means of ensuring that official decision-making is lawful. There are a number of widely held and influential assumptions about the costs and misuse of Judicial Review (JR). First, that the past growth in the use of JR has been largely driven by claimants abusing the system, either deliberately or otherwise. Second, that the effect of JR on public administration is largely negative because JR makes it more difficult for public bodies to deliver public services efficiently. Third, that JR litigation tends to be an expensive and time consuming detour concerned with technical matters of procedure that rarely alters decisions of public bodies. These claims have been challenged for their lack of empirical basis and the study provides additional evidence which shows them to be at best misleading and at worst false.
"Radicalisation" or "Radicalism" continues to be a serious concern. The UK Human Rights blog has an excellent report on activity in the courts - Radicalism and the Family Courts - Marina Wheeler. Please also read the article on the Marilyn Stowe blog by Valerie Sterling - Recent radicalisation cases in the family courts
The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) reported in July 2015 - A Democratic Licence to operate. The Review shows how a democracy can combine the high level of security the public have a right to expect and also ensure the respect for privacy and freedom of speech that are the foundations of a democracy. The panel unanimously calls on government, civil society and industry to accept its recommendations and work together to put them into practice.