*/
The double-headed attack on the Government’s controversial new criminal legal aid contracts will be heard in two separate sets of proceedings in the spring.
A judicial review of the decision to proceed with the contracts will be heard by the Divisional Court in April. The legal challenge, brought by the Fair Crime Contracts Alliance – a coalition of firms – follows allegations made by a whistle-blower and denied by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA), that the assessment process was flawed.
More than 100 individual firms, in 69 out of the 85 procurement areas, whose tender bids were unsuccessful, have also brought procurement law challenges under Part 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules. These cases will be heard in the Technology and Construction Court in May.
In a hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice in December, Lord Justice Laws and Sir Kenneth Parker declined the invitation made by all parties to hear the cases together, stating that the Divisional Court had no jurisdiction to hear Part 7 claims.
The challenges have resulted in the LAA delaying the start of the new contracts even longer that it had anticipated. As a result of the litigation the LAA had indicated that the contracts, which were supposed to begin in January, would begin in April. But that date will have to be put back until the end of both sets of proceedings.
The LAA admitted that a transcription error denied London firm Edward Fail, Bradshaw & Waterson a contract.
Though the Ministry of Justice has said that it will defend the challenges, it is understood that officials are re-examining the policy and that the Lord Chancellor, Michael Gove, might be close to announcing a policy U-turn.
Meanwhile, peers attacked the coalition government’s assault on legal aid, stating that it had no mandate for the cuts.
Liberal Democrat Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC told the House: ‘It is a state’s duty to provide a system of legal aid that enables everyone, including the poor and not so rich, to have effective access to courts and tribunals.’
While Lord Howarth of Newport, who defected from the Conservatives to Labour in 1995, blamed both his parties and said the coalition had no mandate for the cuts as their manifestos had not hinted at it.
The double-headed attack on the Government’s controversial new criminal legal aid contracts will be heard in two separate sets of proceedings in the spring.
A judicial review of the decision to proceed with the contracts will be heard by the Divisional Court in April. The legal challenge, brought by the Fair Crime Contracts Alliance – a coalition of firms – follows allegations made by a whistle-blower and denied by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA), that the assessment process was flawed.
More than 100 individual firms, in 69 out of the 85 procurement areas, whose tender bids were unsuccessful, have also brought procurement law challenges under Part 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules. These cases will be heard in the Technology and Construction Court in May.
In a hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice in December, Lord Justice Laws and Sir Kenneth Parker declined the invitation made by all parties to hear the cases together, stating that the Divisional Court had no jurisdiction to hear Part 7 claims.
The challenges have resulted in the LAA delaying the start of the new contracts even longer that it had anticipated. As a result of the litigation the LAA had indicated that the contracts, which were supposed to begin in January, would begin in April. But that date will have to be put back until the end of both sets of proceedings.
The LAA admitted that a transcription error denied London firm Edward Fail, Bradshaw & Waterson a contract.
Though the Ministry of Justice has said that it will defend the challenges, it is understood that officials are re-examining the policy and that the Lord Chancellor, Michael Gove, might be close to announcing a policy U-turn.
Meanwhile, peers attacked the coalition government’s assault on legal aid, stating that it had no mandate for the cuts.
Liberal Democrat Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC told the House: ‘It is a state’s duty to provide a system of legal aid that enables everyone, including the poor and not so rich, to have effective access to courts and tribunals.’
While Lord Howarth of Newport, who defected from the Conservatives to Labour in 1995, blamed both his parties and said the coalition had no mandate for the cuts as their manifestos had not hinted at it.
The Bar Council is ready to support a turn to the efficiencies that will make a difference
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the latest ONS data on drug misuse and its implications for toxicology testing in family law cases
An interview with Rob Wagg, CEO of New Park Court Chambers
What meaningful steps can you take in 2026 to advance your legal career? asks Thomas Cowan of St Pauls Chambers
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, explains why drugs may appear in test results, despite the donor denying use of them
Ever wondered what a pupillage is like at the CPS? This Q and A provides an insight into the training, experience and next steps
The appointments of 96 new King’s Counsel (also known as silk) are announced today
Ready for the new way to do tax returns? David Southern KC continues his series explaining the impact on barristers. In part 2, a worked example shows the specific practicalities of adapting to the new system
Resolution of the criminal justice crisis does not lie in reheating old ideas that have been roundly rejected before, say Ed Vickers KC, Faras Baloch and Katie Bacon
With pupillage application season under way, Laura Wright reflects on her route to ‘tech barrister’ and offers advice for those aiming at a career at the Bar
