*/
The four criminal barristers challenging the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates (QASA) have been granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
In R (on the application of Lumsdon and others) v Legal Services Board , the appellants sought judicial review of the Legal Services Board (LSB) decision to approve the introduction of QASA.
The panel of three Supreme Court Justices refused permission to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s finding last year that the principle of independence of the advocate was not infringed by QASA, because it did not consider that ground to have a real prospect of success. However, permission to appeal was granted on the ground of whether the Court of Appeal had erred in law by failing to appreciate the effect of Regulation 14 of the Provision of Service Regulations 2009, which states that the authorisation scheme must have an “overriding reason relating to the public interest” and “the objective pursued cannot be attained by means of a less restrictive measure”.
The Court of Appeal had held that the LSB was entitled to a substantial margin of discretion in relation to the question of whether the decision to approve the scheme was proportionate.
A protective costs order has been made and the hearing has been provisionally listed for 16 March.
In the week before the Supreme Court announced its decision to allow the appeal, a Bar Standards Board spokesman said: “The Board decided we should in the meantime explore other ways in which we can properly protect the public from poor standards of advocacy.”
The panel of three Supreme Court Justices refused permission to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s finding last year that the principle of independence of the advocate was not infringed by QASA, because it did not consider that ground to have a real prospect of success. However, permission to appeal was granted on the ground of whether the Court of Appeal had erred in law by failing to appreciate the effect of Regulation 14 of the Provision of Service Regulations 2009, which states that the authorisation scheme must have an “overriding reason relating to the public interest” and “the objective pursued cannot be attained by means of a less restrictive measure”.
The Court of Appeal had held that the LSB was entitled to a substantial margin of discretion in relation to the question of whether the decision to approve the scheme was proportionate.
A protective costs order has been made and the hearing has been provisionally listed for 16 March.
In the week before the Supreme Court announced its decision to allow the appeal, a Bar Standards Board spokesman said: “The Board decided we should in the meantime explore other ways in which we can properly protect the public from poor standards of advocacy.”
The four criminal barristers challenging the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates (QASA) have been granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
In R (on the application of Lumsdon and others) v Legal Services Board, the appellants sought judicial review of the Legal Services Board (LSB) decision to approve the introduction of QASA.
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
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
Kindness Ambassadors – coming to a courtroom near you! Valerie Charbit, Nicola Shannon KC and Professor Robin Banerjee update readers on the second phase of the project examining, and promoting, the impact of kindness and how it can fit into an adversarial system
