Brady, R (on the application of) v The Lord Chancellor & Anor

Brady, R (on the application of) v The Lord Chancellor & Anor

The Lord Chancellor has no residual power under LASPO to grant funding for legal representation outside the legal aid scheme where the Director has refused funding; the Tribunal has no power to grant funding and appointment under Rule 11(7)(a) without funding would be pointless; ECHR does not confer a right to publicly funded legal representation of choice in these circumstances.

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 Hearing
Outcome
Permission to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Legal Aid, Judicial Review, Public Funding, Tribunal Procedure, ECHR Rights
Administrative Law Mental Health Law Human Rights Law Legal Aid Judicial Review Public Funding Tribunal Procedure ECHR Rights

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
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 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 should appoint a legal representative under Rule 11(7)(a) without funding
  3. 3 Whether ECHR Articles 5(4), 6, and 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 funding for legal representation outside the legal aid scheme where the Director has refused funding; the Tribunal has no power to grant funding and appointment under Rule 11(7)(a) without funding would be pointless; ECHR does not confer a right to publicly funded legal representation of choice in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Permission to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Permission to apply for judicial review of the decisions of the Lord Chancellor and Tribunal is refused.
  • Application for permission to appeal refused.