Brady, R (on the application of) v The Lord Chancellor & Anor [2017] EWHC 410 (Admin) (20 February 2017)

Brady, R (on the application of) v The Lord Chancellor & Anor [2017] EWHC 410 (Admin) (20 February 2017)

The Lord Chancellor has no residual power under LASPO to grant public funding for legal representation outside the legal aid scheme where the Director has refused funding; the Tribunal was not obliged to appoint the claimant's chosen solicitor under Rule 11(7)(a); ECHR does not require public funding for legal representation of choice in these circumstances.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 410 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Ian Stewart Brady; First Defendant: The Lord Chancellor; Second Defendant: First Tier Tribunal (Health, Education & Social Care Chamber) Mental Health; Interested Party: Merseyside NHS Foundation Trust; Interested Party: Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission Application (renewed Oral Hearing)
Outcome
Permission to apply for judicial review refused against both defendants.
Legal Topics
Legal Aid, Judicial Review—permission, Mental Health Tribunal Procedure, ECHR Article 5(4), ECHR Article 6, ECHR Article 8, Public Funding for Legal Representation
Administrative Law Mental Health Law Human Rights Law Legal Aid Judicial Review—permission Mental Health Tribunal Procedure ECHR Article 5(4) ECHR Article 6 +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Stewart Brady

Claimant

The Lord Chancellor

First Defendant

First Tier Tribunal (Health, Education & Social Care Chamber) Mental Health

Second Defendant

Merseyside NHS Foundation Trust

Interested Party

Secretary of State for Justice

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission Application (renewed Oral Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Lord Chancellor has residual powers under LASPO to grant public funding for legal representation outside the legal aid scheme
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal was obliged to appoint the claimant's chosen solicitor under Rule 11(7)(a)
  3. 3 Whether ECHR Articles 5(4), 6, or 8 confer a right to publicly funded legal representation of choice in mental health tribunal proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The Lord Chancellor has no residual power under LASPO to grant public funding for legal representation outside the legal aid scheme where the Director has refused funding; the Tribunal was not obliged to appoint the claimant's chosen solicitor under Rule 11(7)(a); ECHR does not require public funding for legal representation of choice in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Permission to apply for judicial review refused against both defendants.

Orders

  • Order for the Second Defendant's costs of acknowledgement of service in principle, with submissions on assessment to follow.
  • No extension of time for appeal granted by the High Court; claimant to apply to the Court of Appeal if necessary.