News

Justice Week? Government cuts MoJ budget by £300 million

By on
24

Not a great start

As a week long campaign to help raise the profile of justice and the rule of law got underway yesterday, the government revealed that the resource budget for the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) will be cut by £300 million.

While there was no mention of justice in the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s budget speech, the Treasury’s report shows the MoJ’s annual pot of cash will shrink from £6.3 billion in 2018/19 to £6 billion in 2019/20. Meanwhile, the capital budget will drop from £600 million in 2018/19 to £400 million in 2019/20. This will decrease to just £100 million in 2020/21, according to the report.

In terms of spending commitments, the report says the budget will help fund a new £170 million Glen Parva prison, £30 million to improve “security and decency” across the prison network, and a £21.5 million investment in the “wider justice system”. Figures show that by 2019/20, the MoJ’s day-to-day will have reduced by over a third in the last ten years.

The latest comments from across Legal Cheek

Responding to the budget, shadow justice secretary Richard Burgon warned austerity will continue in justice. He said:

“Tory cuts are fuelling a crisis across our justice system — from chaos in our prisons to pricing victims out of being able to access legal aid. Despite what the Tories promised, today’s Budget does not end austerity. Justice has been cut to the bone, but there’s still hundreds of millions of pounds of justice cuts to come by 2020. As we have long warned, those cuts are going to push our justice system from deep crisis into a full-blown emergency. If that happens, the responsibility for it lies squarely with the Tories’ ideological commitment to cuts.”

The disappointing budget came as lawyers embarked on a week-long celebration of all things justice.

Justice Week 2018 — a new initiative set up by the three legal professional bodies; the Law Society, the Bar Council and the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEx) — aims to promote the value of the rule of law to audiences beyond the legal community through a programme of research, public events, and digital content.

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Newsletter

For all the latest commercial awareness info, and advance notification of Legal Cheek's careers events:

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub

24 Comments

Anonymous

Good, shrink that shit.

(2)(10)

Anonymous

Which shit should be shrunk? Prisons, Courts, Legal Aid or all of them?

(0)(0)

Anonymous

All of the above. Prisons only really need money spent on guards and walls / barbed wire. There will always be people stupid enough to work in courts for peanuts, and Legal aid is a joke anyway.

(4)(10)

Anonymous

It is a joke. A big hilarious joke. But not for the reasons you think.

(0)(0)

Yo momma's a big hilarious joke

You don’t know what reasons I think.

(0)(3)

Anonymous

Come on, fight me!

(1)(3)

Anonymous

Tax high city salaries to pay for legal aid!

A supertax for all those earning high incomes over £50,000!

VOTE CORBYN

(3)(12)

Anonymous

Oh do bore off.

(3)(2)

Anonymous

Isn’t this just a rehash of what the Gazette published?

(1)(0)

21st Century Boy

Yes it is. No one cool reads the Gazette.

(1)(1)

Cool boy

But I read the Gazette!??

(3)(0)

Anonymous

But….

But….

It was the end of austerity!!!!

#upsidedownsmilyemoji

(3)(1)

Anonymous

duhh…that amount will probably be spent to wage another illegal war!

(0)(1)

Frequently Amused

Aye, against the EU.

F’ing Tory 2@s

(2)(4)

Anonymous

The royal prerogative to wage war cannot be fettered. No war can be illegal. You are just spouting liberal slogans which fly in the face of legal orthodoxy.

(3)(3)

Anonymous

Is it your position that it is therefore impossible for the UK to go to war illegally?

(2)(0)

Anonymous

Well, I can (barely) imagine a consequence in which a rogue field marshal or similar somehow mobilises the UK military against a foreign target without executive approval, but query in that circumstance whether the UK has actually “gone to war” at all – the rogue actor in question has acted unlawfully (ultra vires) but it is an awkward logical structure which would hold the UK to have “gone to war illegally” on that fact pattern. More accurate to say that UK military elements were ordered to take action by an actor operating on an unlawful basis.

Assuming the executive orders the military to take given action, yes, it would be my position that such action is not capable of the description “illegal”, however heinous.

(3)(2)

Anonymous

So if the Queen and parliament both agreed to invade France for no other reason than that it would alleviate the boredom of a turgid Tuesday afternoon, that would be legal would it?

(2)(0)

Top General

Not only legal, but a jolly good lark.

(8)(1)

Anonymous

Yes mate, can you tell me the legal basis on which it would be illegal? It may be damned repulsive, but unless there’s a legal basis on which to call it illegal, it ain’t illegal.

(5)(0)

Anonymous

Racist.

(0)(0)

roy

where in the report does it say Glen Parva will cost £170m

(0)(0)

Crumpet

Bring back Blair
(That was genuinely a joke)

What a shocking government. But I think all parties are currently.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

Anal

(0)(0)

Comments are closed.

Related Stories