*/
Treasury counsel speak out
Barristers briefed by the Government have condemned the impact of its legal aid proposals as “unconscionable”. In an open letter to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve MP QC (4 June), 145 Treasury counsel said that they were well aware of the ways in which judicial review claims “can prove a source of frustration for government” but said that its proposals would undermine the accountability of public bodies.
The Lord Chancellor has proposed that public funding be removed from ‘borderline’ cases with a less than a 50% chance of success, but the signatories claimed that there was a “misconception” in the consultation paper as to the level of certainty which is achievable when advising on the outcome of claims. The barristers, who regularly act for central government departments, said that introducing a residence test for civil legal aid risked the creation of “an underclass of persons within the UK for whom access to the courts is impossible” which “is in our view unconscionable”.
“Think again,” say 90 QCs
Ninety Silks specialising in judicial review urged the Government to reconsider its proposals in a letter to the Daily Telegraph (29 May). The group – including former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith QC, former Director of Public Prosecutions Lord Macdonald QC, Lord Pannick QC, Lord Lester QC, Baroness Kennedy QC and Cherie Booth QC – wrote of their grave concern that access to judicial review was under repeated threat. “The cumulative effect of these proposals will seriously undermine the rule of law, and Britain’s global reputation for justice. They are likely to drive conscientious and dedicated specialist public law practitioners and firms out of business. They will leave many of society’s most vulnerable people without access to any specialist legal advice and representation. In practice, these changes will immunise Government and other public authorities from effective legal challenge,” the QCs said
The Lord Chancellor has proposed that public funding be removed from ‘borderline’ cases with a less than a 50% chance of success, but the signatories claimed that there was a “misconception” in the consultation paper as to the level of certainty which is achievable when advising on the outcome of claims. The barristers, who regularly act for central government departments, said that introducing a residence test for civil legal aid risked the creation of “an underclass of persons within the UK for whom access to the courts is impossible” which “is in our view unconscionable”.
“Think again,” say 90 QCs
Ninety Silks specialising in judicial review urged the Government to reconsider its proposals in a letter to the Daily Telegraph (29 May). The group – including former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith QC, former Director of Public Prosecutions Lord Macdonald QC, Lord Pannick QC, Lord Lester QC, Baroness Kennedy QC and Cherie Booth QC – wrote of their grave concern that access to judicial review was under repeated threat. “The cumulative effect of these proposals will seriously undermine the rule of law, and Britain’s global reputation for justice. They are likely to drive conscientious and dedicated specialist public law practitioners and firms out of business. They will leave many of society’s most vulnerable people without access to any specialist legal advice and representation. In practice, these changes will immunise Government and other public authorities from effective legal challenge,” the QCs said
Treasury counsel speak out
Barristers briefed by the Government have condemned the impact of its legal aid proposals as “unconscionable”. In an open letter to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve MP QC (4 June), 145 Treasury counsel said that they were well aware of the ways in which judicial review claims “can prove a source of frustration for government” but said that its proposals would undermine the accountability of public bodies.
Chair of the Bar reports back
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
A £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs has been made to the leading UK charity tackling international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, outlines the drug and alcohol testing options available for family law professionals, and how a new, free guide can help identify the most appropriate testing method for each specific case
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
A career shaped by advocacy beyond her practice, and the realities of living with an invisible disability – Dr Natasha Shotunde, Black Barristers’ Network Co-Founder and its Chair for seven years, reflects on a decade at the Bar
The odds of success are as unforgiving as ever, but ambition clearly isn’t in short supply. David Wurtzel’s annual deep‑dive into the competition cohort shows who’s entering, who’s thriving and the trends that will define the next wave
Where to start and where to find help? Monisha Shah, Chair of the King’s Counsel Selection Panel, provides an overview of the silk selection process, debunking some myths along the way
Do chatbot providers owe a duty of care for negligent misstatements? Jasper Wong suggests that the principles applicable to humans should apply equally to machines
There is no typical day in the life as a Supreme Court judicial assistant, says Josephine Gillingwater, and that’s what makes the role so enjoyably diverse
