The Lord Chancellor will decide by the end of November whether and, if so, by how much, to increase immigration legal aid fees, as part of a settlement with Duncan Lewis Solicitors
Duncan Lewis brought a judicial review claim in June, on the basis the Lord Chancellor had unlawfully failed or refused to raise the fee rates for ‘controlled work’ in immigration and asylum law, or to take other action to address the provision of legal aid in a timely and effective way.
Last week, however, the High Court approved a consent order by which the firm withdrew the claim on the basis the Lord Chancellor ‘recognises the urgency of the issues’ and commits to a decision by the deadline. Under the settlement, the Lord Chancellor must also commence consultation on any proposed increase within eight weeks of her decision, and take steps towards laying a statutory instrument and implementing any changes in fees with ‘reasonable promptness’.
The claim—supported by a wealth of evidence from across the immigration and asylum and legal aid sector—argued a mismatch between supply and demand resulted in access to justice issues in an area where advice and representation carried life-or-death significance. It argued the shortfall in provision was closely linked to a 48% real-terms cut in rates since 1996.
Jeremy Bloom, solicitor, Duncan Lewis, said: ‘We are hopeful that a decision will be made that will allow legal aid providers to represent eligible individuals in their life-or-death immigration and asylum matters, without sustaining huge financial losses.
‘Our evidence showed that there is no sound basis to conclude that the current system enables suppliers of legal aid to meet the huge demand for their services. The system right now is unsustainable, and the people who lose out are those who simply cannot find a lawyer to put forward their cases.’
Bloom said the firm would bring further legal action if the Lord Chancellor decided not to raise rates, did not raise them enough, or delayed implementation.
The Lord Chancellor is currently considering evidence obtained by the previous government’s Review of Civil Legal Aid shortly before the general election.
