Gudanaviciene & Ors, R (on the application of) v The Director of Legal Aid Casework & Or [2014] EWCA Civ 1622 (15 December 2014)
The Guidance issued by the Lord Chancellor misstates the effect of the relevant Strasbourg and CJEU jurisprudence by setting the threshold for exceptional case funding too high and unduly restricting the circumstances in which legal aid must be provided under section 10(3) of LASPO. The correct approach is that legal aid must be provided where denial would be a breach of Article 6 ECHR or Article 47 of the Charter, assessed by reference to the established factors of complexity, importance, and the applicant's ability to present the case. The Guidance's cumulative effect is to unlawfully limit access to legal aid and must be revised. Article 8 ECHR may require legal aid in some immigration...
- Citation
- [2014] EWCA Civ 1622
- Parties
- Claimant/respondent: Teresa Gudanaviciene; Claimant/respondent: IS (by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor); Claimant/respondent: Cleon Reis; Claimant/respondent: B; Claimant/respondent: Jacqueline Elizabeth Edgehill; Claimant/respondent: LS; Intervener: The British Red Cross Society; Defendant/appellant: The Director of Legal Aid Casework; Defendant/appellant: The Lord Chancellor
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 15 December 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal (administrative Court, Judicial Review) / Court of Appeal Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed in part; Guidance declared unlawful in relevant respects; individual cases remitted or determined as appropriate.
- Legal Topics
- Legal Aid, Exceptional Case Funding, Article 6 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Article 47 EU Charter, Judicial Review, Access to Justice
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Teresa Gudanaviciene
Claimant/respondent
IS (by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor)
Claimant/respondent
Cleon Reis
Claimant/respondent
B
Claimant/respondent
Jacqueline Elizabeth Edgehill
Claimant/respondent
LS
Claimant/respondent
The British Red Cross Society
Intervener
The Director of Legal Aid Casework
Defendant/appellant
The Lord Chancellor
Defendant/appellant
Procedural Posture
Appeal (administrative Court, Judicial Review) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Proper interpretation of section 10(3) of LASPO regarding exceptional case funding for legal aid
- 2 Compatibility of the Lord Chancellor's Guidance with Article 6 ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter
- 3 Whether Article 8 ECHR requires legal aid in immigration cases
Ratio Decidendi
The Guidance issued by the Lord Chancellor misstates the effect of the relevant Strasbourg and CJEU jurisprudence by setting the threshold for exceptional case funding too high and unduly restricting the circumstances in which legal aid must be provided under section 10(3) of LASPO. The correct approach is that legal aid must be provided where denial would be a breach of Article 6 ECHR or Article 47 of the Charter, assessed by reference to the established factors of complexity, importance, and the applicant's ability to present the case. The Guidance's cumulative effect is to unlawfully limit access to legal aid and must be revised. Article 8 ECHR may require legal aid in some immigration...
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed in part; Guidance declared unlawful in relevant respects; individual cases remitted or determined as appropriate.
Orders
- Guidance to be revised to reflect correct legal principles under Article 6 ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter.
- Exceptional case funding decisions in the cases of Gudanaviciene, Reis, B, and Edgehill to be reconsidered or upheld as per the judgment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment