*/
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.
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
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
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
