JR proceedings begin over legal aid cuts

Topics: Criminal justice,Legal aid and access to justice

  • Print
  • Share
  • Comments (7)
  • Save

Related images

  • Chris Grayling

Criminal solicitors’ groups have begun a legal challenge to the Ministry of Justice’s decision to press ahead with legal aid cuts.

Issuing proceedings for judicial review today, the London Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association (LCCSA) and the Criminal Law Solicitors’ Association (CLSA) claimed the consultation that preceded the cuts was conducted unlawfully.  

Advertisement

They claim an economic report prepared for the MoJ by accountants KPMG was ‘unfairly and unlawfully’ withheld by the ministry until after the consultation was closed.

The report, designed to analyse the government’s fee cuts and contracting reforms and advise on the number of legal aid contracts that would be offered, highlighted flaws in the proposals and suggested the model was unworkable in many geographical areas.

It was published in February alongside the government’s final proposals, according to the LCCSA and CLSA, and was ‘incorrectly’ applied to justify the 17.5% cuts and two-tier contracting model.

The action follows a call for funds that has so far raised over £90,000 from the profession to fund the case.

President of the LCCSA Nicola Hill said: ‘It must hit home for the justice secretary that he’s not a law unto himself. He can’t impose swingeing criminal legal aid cuts without having done so fairly.’

She accepted the need to make savings within the criminal justice system, but drew the line at cuts that she claimed prevent lawyers from providing high-quality representation.

‘Quite simply, Mr Grayling pushed these changes through without regard to legality,’ she said.

CLSA chairman Bill Waddington said: ‘Our concern is to protect the public interest and prevent the dismantling of the criminal justice system, considered up until now to be the best in the world.’ He said the profession’s offers to engage with government have been ‘ignored or dismissed’.

‘We take this action to protect the freedoms and rights of individuals who find themselves at the wrong end of a state-funded prosecution and above all to protect the rule of law,’ said Waddington.

In addition to the legal challenge, solicitors in many parts of the country have refused to accept new Crown court cases, leaving defendants unrepresented.

This has resulted in an 81-year-old man appearing undefended on attempted murder charges and a scuffle in a Birmingham court when an unrepresented defendant did not follow court rules.

The action comes as the government faces an argument with the bar over the 30% cuts to legal aid fees paid for the most serious criminal case, leaving defendants in fraud trials without representation.

Overturning a Crown court judge’s decision to stay one case affected, the president of the Queen’s Bench Division Sir Brian Leveson urged the ministry and the profession to resolve the ‘impasse’ that ‘stands in the way of the delivery of justice’.

The cuts are designed to save £215m a year.

An MoJ spokesperson said: 'Legally-aided lawyers are still available to anyone facing criminal investigation that needs one.'

He said the ministry has 'engaged constructively and consistently' with lawyers and amended its original proposals for change in collaboration with representative bodies, including the Law Society, LCCSA and CLSA who all had chance to 'air their views'.

In addition to the KPMG report, he said the ministry commissioned further economic research jointly with the Law Society in September, which was publicly available as part of our final response on legal aid reform.

He added: 'We will, of course, study the legal challenge closely.'

A Law Society spokesperson said that the Society is aware of the proposed action.  'The Society does have mechanisms in place for supporting litigation in various ways, but does not comment on individual applications.'

Readers' comments (7)

  • hopefully on behalf of all solicitors I say well done for having the courage to fight and good luck. grayling should be behind those bars on the inset picture.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Zero chance of this succeeding. I think it is a stalling tactic by the solicitors. The writing is on the wall, a Public Defender System is inevitable. It will be more expensive but it can deliver economies of scale. At the moment many defence firms are under-employed, solicitors do a lot of paralegal and administrative work. They often add very little value to what Counsel does in the Crown Court.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 'The Society does have mechanisms in place for supporting litigation in various ways, but does not comment on individual applications.'

    Why not? And what are these "mechanisms"?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Good riddance to legal aid. Hopefully the numbers of practitioners can now re-adjust to what the market can actually afford without all of this unnecessary regulation.

    Hopefully the SRA will see sense and also stop unnecessary regulation, such as in the case of PII, and cease to make it a compulsory windfall for the weasly PII brokers every year.

    A wave of PII litigation should help drive all Insurers form providing PII.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The cost of this is being borne entirely by donations from individuals and firms.
    Over £90k in under 2 months is staggering. Thank you. But, honestly, we do need more.

    If you believe in this, you should want those fighting your corner to do so with a free hand, with maximum flexibility, and not hamstrung or tactically limited by financial concerns.

    So if you believe in this, please donate:
    http://www.lccsa.org.uk/donate-towards-the-cost-of-judicial-review/

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous 06:42. You really don't have a clue what you are talking about. Probably why you posted anonymously. Save the embarrassment. A large scale Public Defender System will not work,no big secret it would simply cost to much. what will happen is simple. Vulnerable people will not be represented and miscarriages of justice will occur. As for you final comment, I'm afraid I don't quite get the point.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous 28 May 2014 10:31 am:

    "Good riddance to legal aid"?? Spoken like someone who can either afford to pay privately for representation, is completely out of touch with Criminal practice and/or is an MOJ troll!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

  • Print
  • Share
  • Comments (7)
  • Save

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. 

Email inbox

London firm reported to SRA after £17k email case settlement

29 June 2016By

Litigant had objected after personal emails were accessed by lawyers working on the other side.

Lord Justice Longmore

Legal aid contributions decision to face judicial review

28 June 2016By

Court of Appeal urges ‘meaningful negotiations’ between parties in dispute over a capital contribution order.

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