Flannigan, R (On the Application Of) v The Director of Legal Aid Casework the Lord Chancellor

Flannigan, R (On the Application Of) v The Director of Legal Aid Casework the Lord Chancellor

The assessment of Mr Flannigan's disposable capital for the CCO was lawfully conducted under the 2009 Regulations, as assets not subject to restraint at the time of assessment were correctly included. The CCO did not violate A1P1 rights because the deprivation was proportionate, foreseeable, and accompanied by adequate procedural safeguards. The delay in issuing the CCO did not render the process unfair or unlawful, as no prejudice was shown and the result would have been the same even if the assessment had occurred earlier.

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 After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Legal Aid, Capital Contribution Orders, Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR, Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Proceeds of Crime
Administrative Law Criminal Law Human Rights Legal Aid Capital Contribution Orders Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR Judicial Review Procedural Fairness +1 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 4 Authorities cited 15 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 After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the assessment of disposable capital for a Capital Contribution Order (CCO) was lawfully conducted under the 2009 Regulations
  2. 2 Whether the CCO violated the claimant's rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol (A1P1) ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the delay and process in issuing the CCO was unfair or irrational

Ratio Decidendi

The assessment of Mr Flannigan's disposable capital for the CCO was lawfully conducted under the 2009 Regulations, as assets not subject to restraint at the time of assessment were correctly included. The CCO did not violate A1P1 rights because the deprivation was proportionate, foreseeable, and accompanied by adequate procedural safeguards. The delay in issuing the CCO did not render the process unfair or unlawful, as no prejudice was shown and the result would have been the same even if the assessment had occurred earlier.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed