*/
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.
Update from the Chair of the Bar
By Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group
Modernising communication and collaboration at a leading Chancery set. A Zexi case study
How to build profile without compromising professional duties. By Naumaan Farooq, Co-Founder of Inked PR
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the role of cut-off levels, and the wider range of factors that must be considered when interpreting results for family court proceedings
Endometriosis Awareness North, a charity raising awareness of endometriosis and supporting those affected across the North of England, has received a £500 boost from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
A decade of reviews and research has disrupted accepted thinking in the search for causality. Suicides following abuse have overtaken domestic homicides. Is the law keeping up? Professor Susan Edwards KC (Hon) examines recent cases and the obstacles to successful prosecution
The case against judge-only justice – and why efficiency is not enough. By Professor Leslie Thomas KC
Heritage as an anchor and a compass, finding our common humanity and embracing the power of the outsider – Melina Antoniadis’s lessons learnt
Seeing the full picture – Baljit Ubhey OBE outlines the CPS action plan to tackle violence against women and girls, offering insights directly relevant to courtroom practice
Lauren Fullerton examines the how, what and why of setting up a second chambers base
