Ms Justice Bolger handed down a judgment in the High Court on 31 December on a judicial review application made by Darren Winters (the “Applicant”) against the Legal Aid Board, the Minster for Justice and Equality and the Attorney General.
This case involves an application for judicial review by a prisoner (the Applicant) who sought to challenge a decision by the Legal Aid Board. The Board had refused to pay his legal costs under the Legal Aid Custody Issues Scheme (“the scheme”) after previous court proceedings concerning his medical treatment in prison were resolved by consent, with the High Court recommending payment of his costs. Despite this recommendation, the Board rejected his request, leading the applicant to seek judicial review of their decision.
While the Applicant was in prison, he was injured in a road accident while being transported. The next day, he saw a prison nurse but was unable to see a doctor. He initiated legal proceedings seeking an order to compel the prison to provide medical treatment, and those proceedings were resolved by consent with a court recommendation that his legal costs be covered under the scheme. When the Applicant’s solicitors sought reimbursement of the costs, the Legal Aid Board rejected the request, arguing that the case was related to prison administration, which fell outside the scope of the scheme. The Applicant filed for judicial review, but the Board argued that the case was filed too late.
The court first considered whether the judicial review was filed within the required timeframe. According to court rules, an application for judicial review must be made within three months of the decision being challenged. Since the Legal Aid Board had made its decision on July 18, 2023, and the applicant did not issue proceedings until October 19, 2023, the case was technically one day late. The Applicant’s request to extend the deadline was denied.
The court then examined whether the Legal Aid Board was correct in refusing to cover the Applicant’s legal costs under the scheme. The scheme covers specific types of legal cases, such as those involving criminal matters or issues related to a person’s liberty, and the Applicant argued that his case qualified because he was injured while being transported from court to prison and was unable to seek medical treatment independently due to his incarceration.
The court disagreed, finding that: the case did not relate to criminal matters, the case did not concern his liberty as his detention status would not have changed and the scheme was not designed to cover general issues such as this. The court also emphasised that while the High Court’s recommendation to cover the applicant’s costs was significant, it was not binding, and so the Board’s decision was reasonable and lawful. The court also rejected the Applicant’s argument that excluding his case from the scheme violated his constitutional and European Convention rights, including his rights to access the courts and bodily integrity, stating that the right of access does not automatically include a right to legal aid, and there was no evidence of serious harm or medical neglect that would significantly affect his right to bodily integrity.
The court therefore dismissed the Applicant’s case, finding that: the judicial review application was filed too late, there was no valid basis to extend the time limit, the Board had acted lawfully in refusing to cover costs, and there was no breach of constitutional or Convention rights.
Click here to read the full decision.