*/
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.
The beginning of the legal year offers the opportunity for a renewed commitment to justice and the rule of law both at home and abroad
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management sets out the key steps to your dream property
A centre of excellence for youth justice, the Youth Justice Legal Centre provides specialist training, an advice line and a membership programme
By Kem Kemal of Henry Dannell
By Ashley Friday of AlphaBiolabs
Providing bespoke mortgage and protection solutions for barristers
Joanna Hardy-Susskind speaks to those walking away from the criminal Bar
From a traumatic formative education to exceptional criminal silk – Laurie-Anne Power KC talks about her path to the Bar, pursuit of equality and speaking out against discrimination (not just during Black History Month)
Yasmin Ilhan explains the Law Commission’s proposals for a quicker, easier and more effective contempt of court regime
Irresponsible use of AI can lead to serious and embarrassing consequences. Sam Thomas briefs barristers on the five key risks and how to avoid them
James Onalaja concludes his two-part opinion series
