Grayling JR amendment ‘unlawful’ – High Court

Topics: Legal aid and access to justice,Courts business

  • Print
  • Share
  • Comments (8)
  • Save

Related images

  • High Court

Regulations that would have limited access to judicial review are unlawful, the High Court ruled today.

In Ben Hoare Bell Solicitors, Deighton Pierce Glynn Solicitors, Mackintosh Law, Public Law Solicitors and Shelter v The Lord Chancellor, the claimants challenged the legality of an amendment to the legal aid scheme made by the Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) (No 3) Regulations, which came into force on 22 April 2014.

Advertisement

Lord Justice Beatson and Mr Justice Ouseley said the amendment introduced what could ‘broadly be described as a “no permission, no fee” arrangement’ for making a legally aided application for judicial review.

Beatson LJ said the amendment was ‘inconsistent’ with the purposes of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. It extended beyond the circumstances ‘which can be seen as rationally connected to the stated purpose given for its introduction’.

According to the judgment, the lord chancellor argued that the legislation entitled him to make providers carry the risk of the costs of making an application where permission was not granted. This would 'incentivise' them to focus more on the proper application of criteria determining whether a case qualified for legal aid.

The lord chancellor maintained his decision to place the risk on providers was justified by the fact that in 2011/12 and 2012/13, excluding cases which settled, permission was refused in about 30% of judicial review cases funded by legal aid where the provider had stated when seeking a legal aid certificate that merits criteria were satisfied.

Beatson LJ said: ‘It is one thing to decide to transfer risk to providers in order to incentivise them. It is another thing to decide to transfer risk to providers in situations in which doing so cannot incentivise them because what has happened to the application for permission and the way it is handled after the case is issued was beyond the control of the provider and the provider can show that this is so.’

The amount of remuneration at risk in scenarios where the defendant withdrew the decision challenged, or where the court ordered an oral hearing of the application depended in an ‘unpredictable way, on the decisions of the court, and is affected by the actions of others, both of which are beyond the solicitor’s control'.

He said discretion given to the lord chancellor by regulation 5A(1)(b), to pay remuneration where he considered it reasonable to do so, did not ‘[cure] the incompatibility’.

However, Beatson LJ and Ouseley J concluded the relationship between the ‘arguability’ test governing the grant and refusal of permission, and the merits criteria, meant the ‘the purpose for which the lord chancellor has acted is, overall, consistent with LASPO... ’.

Nicola Mackintosh QC, one of the claimants who brought the challenge, said: ‘Judicial review is a vital tool to be able to challenge decisions of the state and make public bodies including government accountable. Where public bodies act unjustly and unlawfully, the public should be able to hold them to account.

'Without legal aid for judicial reviews, these cases will never be taken for people who cannot afford to pay, and justice is denied.’

Law Society president Andrew Caplen said: ‘This is a welcome result. Access to justice is the hallmark of a civilised society. We consider that the regulations would have made access to judicial review much more difficult for some of the weakest and most vulnerable in society and potentially made it easier for public bodies to act without due regard to the law.’

The Ministry of Justice said: 'We are clear hardworking taxpayers' money should not be spent on judicial reviews that are not given permission to proceed. We are therefore pleased this judgment confirms the principle of our reform is lawful.'

A spokesperson said the MoJ will now 'carefully consider' the technical aspects raised by the court and consider its next steps.

Readers' comments (8)

  • This wretched government has to go.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • First Quote Dissection 'A spokesperson said the MoJ will now 'carefully consider' the technical aspects raised by the court and consider its next steps'

    In other words (please just tell it like it is.....duhhh) THEY are going to avidly spend the next few nights/weeks etc, trying to frantically shaft the people even more and send yet more 2 fingered salutes up to the CONSTITUTION, by attempting to plug the loop hole that they FAILED to foresee......

    Isn't that so SPOKESMAN?

    Second Quote Dissection: 'The Ministry of Justice said: 'We are clear hardworking taxpayers' money'

    Save it PAL, we ALL pay TAXES around here, even the UNEMPLOYED. Because EVERYTHING on this PLANET as well you in no doubt KNOW, is TAXED TO DEATH and not just our WAGES!!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • And if that fellow 'Chris Grayling' were perhaps not so 'GOOD' at his JOB. I would be the first in the queue to say that, that fellow there needs SACKING!!

    HOWEVER anyone with even an ounce of brain-matter, should clearly be able to see, that 'Chris Grayling' is just a JOKER who has been employed by the Government merely as a 'COURT JESTER' and who's JOB is SOLELY to ENTERTAIN and DISTRACT all of the PEOPLES. Thus keeping their eyes and ears firmly off of the KING, whilst he being the REAL CRIMINAL conducts his MISCHIEF!!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Oh give it a rest will you, seriously the reason the government is able to do this, is that the industry has become more interested in personal gain and less about the client's interests.

    If the industry spent more time actually negotiating with the insurers rather than being obsessed with getting as much they can get for costs, we wouldn't be in this mess.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Personal gain? Judicial Review? Really?

    I'm not sure that I understand why you mention insurers either. They don't seem to have a dog in this race.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @ Anonymous3 March 2015 09:12 pm

    You really don't have a CLUE if you really think that;

    QUOTE: 'If the industry spent more time actually negotiating with the insurers rather than being obsessed with getting as much they can get for costs, we wouldn't be in this mess.'

    Is the REAL PROBLEM that's going on here.

    We who have ears and eyes and an ounce of common sense are witnessing MANY practitioners in this INDUSTRY as you put it, lose everything because of what is going on here. And I doubt very much that they would be so arrogant to risk it ALL just for the reason in which you ANONYMOUSLY speak.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The reason he mentions "insurers" and "industry" is because it's either a gov rep or an insurer lawyer.

    There's quite a few zombie ANONS that wander these comment sections mouthing the same words over and over again, even if the article doesn't warrant it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It is unhelpful to Mr Grayling to plead ignorance of the law as being an advantage to him in his role as Secretary of State for Justice. Had he had a rudimentary founding he would know that such is no defence to a charge of attempting to pass unlawful Regulations.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

  • Print
  • Share
  • Comments (8)
  • Save

Petty france

‘Gradual fall’ in number of legal aid providers

1 July 2016By

Latest government statistics show decline in civil and crime provider offices.

Karl turner

Former shadow attorney general sorry for failing to declare interest

30 June 2016By

Complaints made to Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards in relation to five parliamentary questions and five debates.

Lord lester cut

Lords sound legal privilege alarm over snooping bill

29 June 2016By

Protections needed on the face of the investigatory powers bill, QCs tell the government. 

Advertisement

Sign up for email news alerts

Daily Update. Keep abreast of the latest developments that affect the profession

Legal Services

Browse the magazine

Current Issue

The Gazette offers you up-to-the-minute national and international news, opinion, features, in-depth articles plus a jobs and appointments section.

Please click the link below for a digital edition