Lawyers have hailed a legal victory on controversial cuts to criminal legal aid fees.
In The Law Society, R v The Lord Chancellor [2018] EWHC 2094 (Admin) last week, the High Court quashed new regulations cutting payments for document-heavy Crown Court cases, which the society argued amounted to a 37% reduction in fees.
Leggatt LJ and Carr J said consultees were entitled to expect that a government department undertaking a consultation would be ‘open and transparent’, but the Ministry of Justice’s (MoJ’s) failure to disclose statistical analysis underpinning its decision made the consultation unfair.
Christina Blacklaws, president of the Law Society, which brought the judicial review, said the changes introduced last December to the Litigators’ Graduated Fee Scheme (LGFS) meant huge amounts of work on the most complex Crown Court cases had gone unpaid. Practitioners who made relevant claims under the 2017 regulations are advised to immediately apply for redetermination.
In a joint statement welcoming the judgment, Angela Rafferty QC, Criminal Bar Association Chair, and Chris Henley QC, Vice Chair, said: ‘We hope that this outcome will now allow for a more constructive engagement by the MoJ with the professions, and greater priority to and investment in the criminal justice system.’
John Halford, partner at Bindmans, which represented the Law Society, said: ‘Legal aid was established, and should function as, a basic, non-negotiable safeguard of fair process and individual liberty in criminal cases.
‘But rather than cherishing this vital part of the British legal system, successive ministers have undermined it with over a decade of cuts based on carelessly made decisions like this one. Had the Law Society not stepped up to defend criminal defence solicitors, the fundamental flaws in the analysis on which this decision was based would never have come to light and their irrationality would have escaped proper scrutiny.’
An MoJ spokesperson said: ‘Defence solicitors do valuable work. The changes we made to the LGFS were intended to ensure payments better reflect the work being done in legal aid-funded criminal proceedings. We will carefully consider the content of the judgment and determine next steps.’
