*/
Seven Supreme Court justices unanimously allowed a challenge to the government’s plans to introduce a 12-month residence for legal aid eligibility.
Halfway through what was scheduled to be a two-day hearing, the court ruled that the Lord Chancellor, Michael Gove, did not have the power to bring in the proposed requirement by way of secondary legislation.
The test, introduced in the 2013 consultation paper, Transforming Legal Aid, and due to come into force in the summer, would have meant that applicants would have had to show lawful residence in the country for 12 months.
Amendments had already been forced to exclude members of the armed forces serving overseas, babies under one and asylum seekers.
In 2014 the High Court struck down the test, ruling it to be discriminatory and unlawful. But the Court of Appeal overturned that judgment last year, stating that the restriction was permissible.
John Halford, the solicitor from Bindmans who represented the Public Law Project, which brought the case, said: ‘The British legal system is rooted in two fundamental principles – that all equally enjoy the protection of our laws and all are accountable to our courts.’
But, he said, the Lord Chancellor ‘planned to undermine them by withholding legal aid from those who failed his residence test, leaving them unable to enforce legal rights’.
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: ‘We are of course very disappointed with this decision. We will now wait for the full written judgment to consider.’
To implement the measure, Gove will have to include it in a Bill that is debated in Parliament.
Seven Supreme Court justices unanimously allowed a challenge to the government’s plans to introduce a 12-month residence for legal aid eligibility.
Halfway through what was scheduled to be a two-day hearing, the court ruled that the Lord Chancellor, Michael Gove, did not have the power to bring in the proposed requirement by way of secondary legislation.
The test, introduced in the 2013 consultation paper, Transforming Legal Aid, and due to come into force in the summer, would have meant that applicants would have had to show lawful residence in the country for 12 months.
Amendments had already been forced to exclude members of the armed forces serving overseas, babies under one and asylum seekers.
In 2014 the High Court struck down the test, ruling it to be discriminatory and unlawful. But the Court of Appeal overturned that judgment last year, stating that the restriction was permissible.
John Halford, the solicitor from Bindmans who represented the Public Law Project, which brought the case, said: ‘The British legal system is rooted in two fundamental principles – that all equally enjoy the protection of our laws and all are accountable to our courts.’
But, he said, the Lord Chancellor ‘planned to undermine them by withholding legal aid from those who failed his residence test, leaving them unable to enforce legal rights’.
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: ‘We are of course very disappointed with this decision. We will now wait for the full written judgment to consider.’
To implement the measure, Gove will have to include it in a Bill that is debated in Parliament.
Chair of the Bar finds common ground on legal services between our two jurisdictions, plus an update on jury trials
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
An interview with Rob Wagg, CEO of New Park Court Chambers
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
With at least 31 reports of AI hallucinations in UK legal cases – over 800 worldwide – and judges using AI to assist in judicial decision-making, the risks and benefits are impossible to ignore. Matthew Lee examines how different jurisdictions are responding
What has changed, and why? Paul Secher unpacks the new standards aligning the recruiting, training and appraising of judges – the first major change to the system for ten years
The deprivation of liberty is the most significant power the state can exercise. Drawing on frontline experience, Chris Henley KC explains why replacing trial by jury with judge-only trials risks undermining justice
Baffled by the government’s proposed s 41 reforms and by the Law Commission’s preferred model, Laura Hoyano looks at what won’t work, and what will
