Taxpayers helped fund legal services for those in need to the tune of $285 million in 2024, a figure that was forecast to rise again this year. The Government has just announced $245.5m will be invested over four years to address pressures in the courts and legal aid. Today, as part of a series looking into the merits and costs of legal aid, Tracy Neal assesses some of the reader feedback so far.

A victim of violence is frustrated that her ex is now out of prison and has applied for legal aid to oppose a protection order she has in place.

She said he was also making a publicly funded legal bid for a parenting order to gain access to their son.

“How do we stop the legal system paying for our abusers to continue to access us for control?” the woman asked.

“We would not be put through this devastating experience in court facing our abusers fighting for protection if legal aid was not available for these people.”

Another person said her sister launched legal action over their late father’s will and “modest estate” worth $122,000, which was meant to be split equally.

The case was settled before it reached trial, but the woman said her sister then took her to court for costs associated with the judicial settlement conference.

A woman is angry that her sister, who lives overseas, was granted legal aid to fight a costs decision in a dispute over their late father's will. Photo / 123RF

The court ruled that those costs had to lie where they fell, but the sister, who lives in North America, then applied for legal aid to appeal to the High Court.

The initial application was declined, and then granted through a reconsideration process, the woman said.

“This raises serious concerns about oversight and accountability.

“Throughout this ordeal, I repeatedly alerted legal aid officials.”

Another person described herself as someone who has “lived through the failings of multiple systems meant to protect her”.

Yet, others in the course of this legal aid series have said they could not have succeeded in gaining a just outcome without the help of legal aid.

These examples were excerpts from some of the responses received after recent stories by NZME about the legal aid scheme, which is under review.

Taxpayers helped fund legal services for those in need to the tune of $270 million last year, excluding the duty lawyer service, police detention legal assistance and family legal advice service, which meant the total expenditure was $285m.

The figure was forecast to rise this year to just over $297m.

The legal aid scheme provides publicly funded legal advice and representation for people who cannot otherwise afford a lawyer.

It is for people who might be facing criminal charges; involved in a family dispute that goes to court, such as care of children; or a civil matter, such as a dispute over money, housing, ACC or a job.

The aim was to help ensure that people were not denied justice because of their financial means.

However, there have been calls in recent years for more support as lawyers working in this area have become increasingly burdened by more work for what amounts to less pay.

The Government has announced in the latest Budget a total investment of $245.5m over four years to address pressures in the courts and legal aid.

It’s been welcomed by lawyers, who’ve been struggling beneath the weight of increasing workloads for less remuneration, but with some caveats.

The New Zealand Law Society said it supported additional funding to address pressures in the courts, but it was currently unclear how this funding will be used, beyond meeting inflationary costs and forecasted increases in demand.

Law Society president Frazer Barton said reference in the Budget to additional funding for legal aid is important but it did not address wider, systemic issues such as remuneration and distribution of legal aid providers across the country.

“Although we would have liked to see this begin to be addressed, we understand this is likely due to the legal aid review,” Barton said.

The head of a Nelson law firm with a strong focus on ensuring people can access legal services said more funding was appreciated.

Steven Zindel, of Zindels Law, said defence lawyers were too often “chasing our tails” and kicking cases to touch in a “blizzard of other work”.

He said more money to go around might help with the recruitment of junior lawyers and their retention, “before we lose them to other sectors of law or business”.

Money for more judges

The Government said additional funding would allow for the appointment of two new permanent High Court judges, additional community magistrates and a chief community magistrate to help ease backlogs.

Barton said this might improve access to justice, but based on the information so far, it was not clear how it might relieve the burden on the legal profession.

“Where increased capacity is achieved in one area of the system, it can create capacity issues elsewhere,” he said.

“To improve timeliness, ongoing work and investment are needed across all parts of the justice system.”

He said an important part of the system was the courthouses. Adequate facilities and a sufficient number of suitable courtrooms were needed to ensure the progression of cases.

“The Law Society supports the Budget’s funding of the new courthouse in Tauranga, but more is required across the motu and we are disappointed that funding was not made available for the planned courthouses in Rotorua and Waitākere.”

Reducing ‘meritless litigation’

The ministry said in a post-Budget statement that planned legislative changes would not only help speed up the court process but also help reduce stress and costs for people associated with defending what it described as “meritless litigation”.

According to data provided by the Ministry of Justice, legal aid-funded appeals made up roughly 30% of all appeals heard in the High Court, and about 3% of appeals heard in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal.

Appeals in the two higher courts were granted at the courts’ discretion, through applications for leave to appeal.

Planned changes to the Senior Courts Act would enable a single senior court judge to strike out proceedings without holding a hearing in civil proceedings, where applications and appeals by “vexatious litigants” were considered to be an abuse of court process.

The changes would also restrain anyone with two proceedings struck out within two years from continuing or starting proceedings without the leave of the court, for three years.

Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act aim to improve management of district court cases at the pre-trial stage, and reduce the workload of the Court of Appeal by allowing first appeals in criminal trials to be referred to the High Court, where appropriate.

Amendments to the Coroners Act would enable coroners to close inquiries when new information, or a change in circumstances, meant it was no longer appropriate to conduct the inquiry.

Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She was previously RNZ’s regional reporter in Nelson-Marlborough and has covered general news, including court and local government for the Nelson Mail.