Flannigan, R (On the Application Of) v The Director of Legal Aid Casework the Lord Chancellor [2018] EWHC 1927 (Admin) (25 July 2018)

Flannigan, R (On the Application Of) v The Director of Legal Aid Casework the Lord Chancellor [2018] EWHC 1927 (Admin) (25 July 2018)

The Director of Legal Aid Casework lawfully included assets not restrained at the date of assessment in the calculation of disposable capital for the CCO, acted within the statutory powers, and did not violate the claimant's A1P1 rights as the regime was proportionate, predictable, and contained adequate procedural safeguards. The delay in assessment was regrettable but not unfair or irrational, and would not have altered the outcome.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 1927 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Frank Flannigan; First Defendant: Director of Legal Aid Casework; Second Defendant: Lord Chancellor
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Legal Aid, Capital Contribution Orders, Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR, Proceeds of Crime, Procedural Fairness
Administrative Law Criminal Law Human Rights Law Legal Aid Capital Contribution Orders Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR Proceeds of Crime Procedural Fairness

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frank Flannigan

Claimant

Director of Legal Aid Casework

First Defendant

Lord Chancellor

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director of Legal Aid Casework correctly applied the Criminal Defence Service (Contribution Orders) Regulations 2009 in assessing disposable capital for a Capital Contribution Order
  2. 2 Whether the assessment violated the claimant's rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol (A1P1) ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the assessment was irrational or unfair due to delay

Ratio Decidendi

The Director of Legal Aid Casework lawfully included assets not restrained at the date of assessment in the calculation of disposable capital for the CCO, acted within the statutory powers, and did not violate the claimant's A1P1 rights as the regime was proportionate, predictable, and contained adequate procedural safeguards. The delay in assessment was regrettable but not unfair or irrational, and would not have altered the outcome.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application for judicial review refused
  • Capital Contribution Order stands and is enforceable