Evaluation of the ability of community legal centresto achieve the principles of justice
- The task word ‘discuss’ require students to consider both sides of something. In this case, ‘discussing’ the ability of community legal centresto achieve theprinciples of justice requires students to write about relevant strengths and weaknesses of CLCs. Responses will vary according to the arguments selected.
Arguments in support of CLCs achieving the principles of justice include:
- Criminal representation in specialist CLCs is targeted to support accused people with special needs, and is integrated with other programs. This supports the ability of clients to meaningfully access the system.
- CLCs work with some of the most marginalised and disadvantaged people, who are almost the most likely to become involved in the criminal justice system. This provides greater equity across population groups suffering differing levels of advantage and disadvantage.
- CLC legal assistance is tailored to the needs of the local community because CLCs are community-run. Generalist CLCs are located in council areas, and are staffed and managed by lawyers, students and board members who live or work locally.
- CLCs are able to service a large number of clients because almost all CLCs provide basic advice and administrative assistance at regular free drop-in sessions; some CLCs have sessions once or twice a week, while others hold them daily on weekdays. At each session, up to a dozen volunteer lawyerscan be rostered on to see clients, providing equality to all people in the catchment area.
- CLCs can tailor the level of support they provide to the needs of the client and the seriousness of the dispute. CLCs have website resources and free pamphlets available, as well as general legal information provided over the telephone. In addition, they also have the option of using either private funding or VLA grants to act on behalf of clients facing serious charges.
Arguments against CLCs achieving the principles of justice include:
- The funding allocated to CLCs and the resources available to them do not match the demand for their services. Many people wait for over an hour at every drop-in session to speak to a lawyer, and some are turned away because there are not enough volunteer lawyers to see everyone.
- Drop-in sessions are the primary way in which CLCs provide legal advice to clients, but this is not the same as actual representation. The CLC budget for actual representation is very small, and only a few clients will be able to have official representation at any one time. True access to justice is not achieved if inexperienced people have to present their own cases in court.
- Because most clients are spoken to or seen by volunteer lawyers, CLC lawyers are frequently not specialists in the area of law concerning their clients.
- Funding and policy limitations restrict the total number of CLCs operating in Victoria, and some smaller CLCs have combined to form larger centres that cover wider areas – for example, Darebin Community Legal Centre merged with Fitzroy Legal Service in 2019. This makes the physical location further awayfor most people to access, and it prevents the CLC from being as closely integrated with its local community.
- The task word ‘evaluate’ require students to consider both sides of something, as well as express an opinion judging the relative strengths of the arguments. For example, a student might argue, based on evidence when referring to the arguments for and against community legal centres, that they doachieve one principle of justice. Responses will vary according to the arguments selected.