header-logo header-logo

Prisoners win back legal aid

11 April 2017
Issue: 7742 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Cuts made in December 2013 to legal aid for prisoners have been ruled unlawful on the basis of “inherent or systemic unfairness”, in a blow for the Ministry of Justice.

Widespread cuts to criminal legal aid for prisoners were introduced by the Criminal Legal Aid (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/2790). The Howard League for Penal Reform and the Prisoners’ Advice Service (PAS), both charities, brought a judicial review.

In R (Howard League and the Prisoners’ Advice Service) v The Lord Chancellor [2017] EWCA Civ 244, the court considered whether legal aid cuts should be reversed in five areas: certain pre-tariff reviews by the Parole Board; categorisation reviews of Category A prisoners; access to offending behaviour programmes (OBPs) and courses; certain disciplinary proceedings; and placement in close supervision centres (CSCs).

It held that the high threshold required for a finding of inherent or systemic unfairness had been satisfied in the case of pre-tariff reviews by the Parole Board, Category A reviews, and decisions as to placement in a CSC. This was particularly so “in the case of vulnerable prisoners, such as those with learning disabilities and mental illness,” Lord Justice Beatson said.

However, the court ruled the lack of legal aid lawful in the areas of OBPs and disciplinary proceedings.

Prior to the hearing, the government agreed to make legal aid available for cases concerning: mother and baby units; resettlement; licence conditions; and segregation through an exceptional funding scheme.

Simon Creighton, Bhatt Murphy partner, solicitor for the charities and representative for the Association of Prison Lawyers, said: “Access to legal advice for prisoners makes prisons fairer, safer and better at rehabilitating prisoners.

“This was first recognised in the Woolf report a quarter of a century ago and this judgment underlines that it is still true today.”

Frances Crook, the Howard League’s chief executive, said the decision would “make the public safer”, and sent a “clear message that important decisions about prisoners cannot be made efficiently or fairly in the face of these cuts”.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “We note the Court of Appeal’s judgment on changes made to legal aid regulations—introduced in 2013—and will consider whether to appeal.” 

Issue: 7742 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll