Judicial review of Jackson?

The Spinal Injuries Association (SIA) launched judicial review proceedings in the High Court last week against the Jackson reforms in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which would see victims paying some of their legal fees from their compensation.

It claims the government: failed to carry out proper assessments of how its proposals would affect disabled people; ignored the high level of opposition to its plans, including from some senior judges; took insufficient note of arguments that its plans would hinder access to justice; and left an insufficient time between the consultation closing and the justice secretary issuing a response in the House of Commons.

The action is supported by other victims groups including brain injury charity Headway and Action Against Medical Accidents (AvMA).

Dan Burden, head of public affairs at the SIA, said: “A newly injured person who is facing up to a life of permanent disability and paralysis should be entitled to obtain good quality legal advice which is independent, without financial pressures impacting their decision to progress a claim.”

The Institute of Legal Executives (Ilex) issued a briefing note to MPs last week, ahead of the second reading of the Bill in the House of Commons. It said uncertainty over recovery of costs would prevent the pursuit of legitimate claims, that the loss of 25% of damages by a high proportion of claimants would increase NHS care costs, and that the changes would reduce the availability and affordability of after the event insurance products, which would still be required for non-personal injury matters, as well as some PI matters.

Last week, justice secretary, Ken Clarke announced a £20m fund to help law centres and not-for-profit advice agencies adjust to the proposed £350m legal aid cuts.

The announcement, made during the Bill’s second reading, follows warnings from the Law Centres Federation that several centres were under threat.