*/
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.
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
Giovanni D’Avola explores the issue of over-citation of unreported cases and the ‘added value’ elements of a law report
Louise Crush explores the key points and opportunities for tax efficiency
Westgate Wealth Management Ltd is a Partner Practice of FTSE 100 company St. James’s Place – one of the top UK Wealth Management firms. We offer a holistic service of distinct quality, integrity, and excellence with the aim to build a professional and valuable relationship with our clients, helping to provide them with security now, prosperity in the future and the highest standard of service in all of our dealings.
Is now the time to review your financial position, having reached a career milestone? asks Louise Crush
If you were to host a dinner party with 10 guests, and you asked them to explain what financial planning is and how it differs to financial advice, you’d receive 10 different answers. The variety of answers highlights the ongoing need to clarify and promote the value of financial planning.
Most of us like to think we would risk our career in order to meet our ethical obligations, so why have so many lawyers failed to hold the line? asks Flora Page
If your current practice environment is bringing you down, seek a new one. However daunting the change, it will be worth it, says Anon Barrister
Creating advocacy opportunities for juniors is now the expectation but not always easy to put into effect. Tom Mitcheson KC distils developing best practice from the Patents Court initiative already bearing fruit
National courts are now running the bulk of the world’s war crimes cases and corporate prosecutions are part of this growing trend, reports Chris Stephen
Let’s hear it for the assessors, says Dame Anne Rafferty of the KC Selection Panel. And to make silk assessors’ lives a little easier when applicants come calling in May, Dame Anne fields some commonly asked questions
