header-logo header-logo

05 January 2015
Issue: 7635 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Legal aid lawyers win injunction

Criminal legal aid solicitors involved in duty police station and court work have been granted a temporary reprieve ahead of a crucial judicial review case later this month.

Mr Justice Jay in the high court called a temporary halt to the controversial two-tier bidding process for duty providers shortly before Christmas, following an application for an interlocutory injunction brought by the Criminal Law Solicitors’ Association (CLSA) and the London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association (LCCSA). The court ruled that it was against the public interest to continue with the process pending the judicial review scheduled for the third week of January.

Criminal legal aid lawyers are concerned that the new contracts will destroy their livelihoods and reduce access to justice. They face a reduction in the number of contracts available from 1600 to 527, as well as an average 8.75% fee cut.

Jay J’s decision lands another blow on the beleaguered justice secretary, Chris Grayling, who was held in September to have run a consultation on the criminal legal aid reforms “so unfair as to amount to illegality” after he failed to disclose two independent reports by accountants KPMG and Otterburn.

Grayling has also suffered judicial review defeats over a proposed ban on prisoner’s books, and a proposal to make mesothelioma suffers pay costs. 

Robin Murray, CLSA vice chairman, urged members to “hope for the best but prepare for the worst”.

“It may be that some of you will feel the tide has turned and will gamble upon our ultimate victory,” he said. 

“That is a choice for each individual firm to make. We do believe in the justice of the professions cause and are confident that we shall prevail but it would be irresponsible for us as an association to advise people not to bid.”

The judicial review will be heard alongside a separate judicial review brought by the Law Society. Andrew Caplen, president of the Law Society, welcomed the injunction.

The current bids deadline of 29 January continues to stand, although the LCCSA has said it would ask for this to be extended to 45 days after judgment if they lose the judicial review.

 

Issue: 7635 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
Litigators digesting Mazur are being urged to tighten oversight and compliance. In his latest 'Insider' column for NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School provides a cut out and keep guide to the ruling’s core test: whether an unauthorised individual is ‘in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual’
Conflicting county court rulings have left landlords uncertain over whether they can force entry after tenants refuse access. In this week's NLJ, Edward Blakeney and Ashpen Rajah of Falcon Chambers outline a split: some judges permit it under CPR 70.2A, others insist only Parliament can authorise such powers
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
back-to-top-scroll