*/
The consultation process adopted by the Lord Chancellor during the Government’s legal aid reforms “was so unfair as to result in illegality”, the High Court has ruled.
The London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association and Criminal Law Solicitors Association brought the judicial review challenge to ascertain whether procedural fairness required the Lord Chancellor to disclose for comment the contents of the two independent expert reports, which had provided the basis for reducing the number of duty provider work contracts from 1,600 to 525.
Mr Justice Burnett ruled that “something clearly did go wrong” and consequently quashed the decision that 525 duty provider work contracts would be available under the new arrangements, ordering a “relatively short” consultation on the research which informed its decision. The solicitors’ groups’ objection to the fee cuts was rejected because a “sufficient connection between the flaws identified in the consultation process and the decision to reduce fees” had not been established.
Mr Justice Burnett ruled that “something clearly did go wrong” and consequently quashed the decision that 525 duty provider work contracts would be available under the new arrangements, ordering a “relatively short” consultation on the research which informed its decision. The solicitors’ groups’ objection to the fee cuts was rejected because a “sufficient connection between the flaws identified in the consultation process and the decision to reduce fees” had not been established.
The consultation process adopted by the Lord Chancellor during the Government’s legal aid reforms “was so unfair as to result in illegality”, the High Court has ruled.
The London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association and Criminal Law Solicitors Association brought the judicial review challenge to ascertain whether procedural fairness required the Lord Chancellor to disclose for comment the contents of the two independent expert reports, which had provided the basis for reducing the number of duty provider work contracts from 1,600 to 525.
Now is the time to tackle inappropriate behaviour at the Bar as well as extend our reach and collaboration with organisations and individuals at home and abroad
A comparison – Dan Monaghan, Head of DWF Chambers, invites two viewpoints
And if not, why not? asks Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Head of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, discusses the many benefits of oral fluid drug testing for child welfare and protection matters
To mark International Women’s Day, Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management looks at how financial planning can help bridge the gap
Casey Randall of AlphaBiolabs answers some of the most common questions regarding relationship DNA testing for court
Maria Scotland and Niamh Wilkie report from the Bar Council’s 2024 visit to the United Arab Emirates exploring practice development opportunities for the England and Wales family Bar
Marking Neurodiversity Week 2025, an anonymous barrister shares the revelations and emotions from a mid-career diagnosis with a view to encouraging others to find out more
David Wurtzel analyses the outcome of the 2024 silk competition and how it compares with previous years, revealing some striking trends and home truths for the profession
Save for some high-flyers and those who can become commercial arbitrators, it is generally a question of all or nothing but that does not mean moving from hero to zero, says Andrew Hillier
