header-logo header-logo

Right to reply: Legal aid, judicial review, and the fight for justice

17 March 2017
Issue: 7738 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Response from Shaun McNally CBE, chief executive, Legal Aid Agency

The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) welcomes the opportunity to respond to John Ford’s article “Legal aid, judicial review, and the fight for justice” (NLJ, 3 March 2017, p 7).

The LAA is an Executive Agency set up in 2013 to commission and administer legal aid in England and Wales. The responsibilities carried out by the LAA include making decisions on individual cases on my behalf. As the Director of Legal Aid Casework, I am a statutory office holder appointed under the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). Decisions are taken independently from the Lord Chancellor in accordance with the rules and regulations set down by LASPO and the legal aid legislation. It would not be appropriate for the LAA to comment on the specific case highlighted by Mr Ford (“Miss A”) while the litigation is ongoing.

The LAA must make all decisions within the statutory framework provided by Parliament. We have clear internal processes and structures in place to ensure that our handling of cases is independent, high-quality, and consistent. This includes appropriate escalation procedures to make sure that complicated or high profile matters are considered by more senior staff, and a comprehensive system of review and appeal mechanisms that individuals can use to challenge our initial decisions.

It is incumbent on us to ensure that taxpayers’ money is used for the purposes intended by Parliament. We have a robust testing and assurance regime to ensure that decisions are made in line with the prevailing rules and regulations. The National Audit Office provide a further level of scrutiny. It is a matter of public record that the LAA has received a clean audit opinion since its inception.

The LAA publishes a number of documents on its website setting out transparently how we carry out our functions and manage public money. For readers interested in our work, these can be found here.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll