Commission rethink

The current proposals of the Legal Services Commission for judicial review work would if implemented represent a major impediment to access to justice.

The commission's proposal is that no solicitors' firm or advice agency could be funded for judicial review work unless the supervising solicitor has undertaken at least six judicial review cases in the last three years, of which at least three must have gone to the permission stage.

For the immigration category, the proposed criteria is that the supervising solicitor must have undertaken at least ten judicial review cases in the last three years, at least five of which must have gone to the permission stage.

If equally restrictive criteria were to be imposed on, say, police officers carrying guns, the effect of the commission's proposals could read 'at least one police officer at the station must have shot at least six people in the last three years, of which at least three must have been fatalities'.

This is a dramatic example but is given to highlight the restrictive nature of what the commission is proposing in relation to judicial review.

The commission is misconceived in viewing judicial review as an area of law in its own right rather than what it actually is - a specific remedy.

The commission should be striving to increase access to justice, not restrict it.

Proposals of the type set out will do little to help ordinary, vulnerable people, who have genuine grievances with public authorities.

The commission should take notice of the the warning signs and think again.

Paul Montero, Williamsons, Lowgate, Hull, north Humberside.