Charities lose prisoners’ case against cuts
The High Court has dismissed a challenge against legal aid cuts for prisoners.
Ruling in R (on the application of the Howard League) v Lord Chancellor [2014] EWHC 709 (Admin), Mr Justice Cranston and Lady Justice Rafferty held that the case involved political issues and not legal ones.
Two separate judicial reviews were brought by the Howard League for Penal Reform and the Prisoners’ Advice Service, arguing that removing legal aid for certain Parole Board cases and for certain cases affecting prisoners’ progress through their sentence, is unlawful. The two charities argued on grounds of insufficient consultation and that removal of legal aid creates unacceptable risks of unfair decision-making, is discriminatory, irrational and likely to undermine the rule of law. The High Court linked the cases.
The Lord Chancellor countered that prisoners could use the prisoner complaints system and judicial review to resolve their issues.
Delivering judgment, Cranston J stated: “We can well understand the concerns ventilated through these claims.
“A range of impressive commentators have argued that the changes to criminal legal aid for prison law…will have serious adverse effects for prisoners. But we simply cannot see, at least at this point in time, how these concerns can arguably constitute unlawful action by the Lord Chancellor. For the time being the forum for advancing these concerns remains the political.”
Legal aid for prisoners was removed in December 2013.
Frances Crook, chief executive of the Howard League, says: “The court completely failed to address how unfairness would not arise in particular situations where prisoners are unrepresented. These include parole board hearings where secret evidence is used against the prisoner or other cases which turn on expert evidence that cannot be commissioned without legal representation and funding.”
The charities intend to appeal the case.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=eca3d272_1)
