*/
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.
The Chair of the Bar reports back
By Kem Kemal, CEO, Henry Dannell
By BSK Financial Planning
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs
Susie Griffin on the admin that keeps barristers from billable work
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, explains how global events can influence the performance of pensions and ISAs, and why taking a long-term approach to investing is often the most effective strategy
Kick off your career at the Bar Council’s Pupillage Fair this October – it’s one of the most valuable opportunities for aspiring barristers, says Amelia Clegg
Join us on Saturday 21 November 2026 at Leeds Beckett University and see for yourself why the North continues to be an exceptional place to build a career at the Bar
The golden age of advocacy? David Langwallner pays homage to the filmic if contentious barrister Sir Edward Carson and some of his contemporaries
Henry Fingerhut outlines what the Bar Standards Board AI guidance means for early career barristers
Not yet, says Jacob Turner. Regulation, unlike the technology itself, is a domain the legal profession can still control
