header-logo header-logo

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

Prisoners win back legal aid

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll