*/
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.
The Chair of the Bar reports back
Susie Griffin on the admin that keeps barristers from billable work
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, explains how global events can influence the performance of pensions and ISAs, and why taking a long-term approach to investing is often the most effective strategy
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs, discusses what family law professionals need to know about hallucinogens, from the main hallucinogenic drugs encountered in family proceedings, to their effects and the testing options available
Harmony Christian Ministries is the latest charity to benefit from a £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
By David Green
The golden age of advocacy? David Langwallner pays homage to the filmic if contentious barrister Sir Edward Carson and some of his contemporaries
Leah Arthur, a pupil, and her second seat supervisor, John Goss, share their perspectives on building a productive pupil-supervisor relationship
Henry Fingerhut outlines what the Bar Standards Board AI guidance means for early career barristers
The Ministry of Justice will match-fund up to 100 criminal pupillages, with grants available to criminal chambers across England and Wales. Similar to the COIC scheme, the grants will match-fund pupillages additional to those otherwise offered without government funding
Not yet, says Jacob Turner. Regulation, unlike the technology itself, is a domain the legal profession can still control
