*/
The consultation process adopted by the Lord Chancellor during the Government’s legal aid reforms “was so unfair as to result in illegality”, the High Court has ruled.
The London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association and Criminal Law Solicitors Association brought the judicial review challenge to ascertain whether procedural fairness required the Lord Chancellor to disclose for comment the contents of the two independent expert reports, which had provided the basis for reducing the number of duty provider work contracts from 1,600 to 525.
Mr Justice Burnett ruled that “something clearly did go wrong” and consequently quashed the decision that 525 duty provider work contracts would be available under the new arrangements, ordering a “relatively short” consultation on the research which informed its decision. The solicitors’ groups’ objection to the fee cuts was rejected because a “sufficient connection between the flaws identified in the consultation process and the decision to reduce fees” had not been established.
Mr Justice Burnett ruled that “something clearly did go wrong” and consequently quashed the decision that 525 duty provider work contracts would be available under the new arrangements, ordering a “relatively short” consultation on the research which informed its decision. The solicitors’ groups’ objection to the fee cuts was rejected because a “sufficient connection between the flaws identified in the consultation process and the decision to reduce fees” had not been established.
The consultation process adopted by the Lord Chancellor during the Government’s legal aid reforms “was so unfair as to result in illegality”, the High Court has ruled.
The London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association and Criminal Law Solicitors Association brought the judicial review challenge to ascertain whether procedural fairness required the Lord Chancellor to disclose for comment the contents of the two independent expert reports, which had provided the basis for reducing the number of duty provider work contracts from 1,600 to 525.
A decade of cuts and the brutal pandemic have left courts and barristers struggling to cope – a bid for justice spending
Philip N Bristow explains how to unlock your aged debt to fund your tax in one easy step
With the property market witnessing significant changes since the beginning of the pandemic, Fleet Street Wealth’s Managing Director Julian Morgan considers the future of the home, the second home and the office
In partnership with the Bar Council, LexisNexis is offering up to 60% off its extensive webinar offering.
Chambers is expanding its team.
Making a move from the Bar to a career in governance: Maria Brookes outlines three good reasons to switch and how to do it
The family law system is in crisis and a failure to recognise it as such demeans the Herculean efforts of all involved, writes Celestine Greenwood, an exhausted family practitioner
Should we cap numbers coming to the Bar? Or help them make data driven decisions? asks IshanKolhatkar
Time to look afresh at the imposter syndrome narrative? Why pathologizing normal anxieties can be unhelpful to barristers and future generations. By Kate Brunner QC and Sarah Regan
Shifting the taboo, two silks talk about the menopause, its impact on women at the Bar and the need for a profession-wide rethink. By Lyndsey de Mestre QC and Brie Stevens-Hoare QC
Other sectors have support staff in place for senior professionals, so why not the Bar? An established barrister/VA team and their matchmaker explain how they make it work
