UK Parliamentary committee criticises govt’s judicial review legal aid reforms

New UK regulations mean that legal aid will only be available for judicial review where permission to apply for the review has been granted, or at the discretion of the Legal Aid Agency.

Labour leader Ed Miliband has tabled a motion calling for the rescindment of the Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration)(Amendment)(No 3) Regulations, and this will be debated in Parliament at some point.  Because of how the regulations have come into effect, this debate may be the only opportunity for the regulations to be scrutinised by the whole of Parliament. The Joint Parlimentary Committee on Human Right in a new report has said the new regulations are not “justified by the evidence …. [and constitute] a potentially serious interference with access to justice”.

A March briefing paper by UK legal rights organisation JUSTICE noted that the regulations “have a damaging effect on the right of individuals without means to secure advice and representation for the purposes of pursuing a judicial review. In turn, this will inhibit transparency and accountability in public decision making and the long-term development of public and administrative law. The Regulations themselves contain little detail and appear to have a broader effect than expressed by Government.” JUSTICE also pointed to exchanges between MPs in Parliament which it claims highlights a lack of understanding about how the new regulations will work in conjunction with other proposed legal aid changes – for example, a proposed “residence test” to determine eligibility for legal aid.

Click here to read the JUSTICE briefing paper. 

Click here to read a short update on the Public Law Project website about the new regulations. 

Bulletin readers may recall that the Public Law Project is challenging the proposed residence test for legal aid. Click here to read this bulletin article. 

There are also wider UK judicial review reforms being proposed under the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill. Bulletin readers may recall that we reported recently on this Bill in March – click here to read more. In relation to protective costs orders, the Joint Committee has said that “Restricting the availability of costs capping orders to cases in which permission to proceed has already been granted by the court is too great a restriction and will undermine effective access to justice”.

In relation to changes about interveners’ liability for costs, the Joint Committee has said “We are concerned that the Bill will introduce a significant deterrent to interventions in judicial review cases, because of the risk of liability for other parties’ costs, regardless of the outcome of the case and the contribution to that outcome made by the intervention”.

Click here to read the Joint Committee’s report. 

Share

Resources

Sustaining Partners