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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll