Gudanaviciene & Ors, R (on the application of) v The Director of Legal Aid Casework & Or

Gudanaviciene & Ors, R (on the application of) v The Director of Legal Aid Casework & Or

The Guidance misstates the effect of ECtHR and CJEU jurisprudence by imposing an impermissibly high threshold for exceptional case funding and wrongly excludes procedural obligations under Article 8 ECHR in immigration cases. The correct test is whether denial of legal aid would breach Convention or EU rights, assessed by reference to all circumstances and relevant case law. Family reunion applications are not in scope under LASPO, but ECF may be required where failure to provide legal aid would breach Article 8 rights.

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
Judicial Review (consolidated Appeals) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeals allowed in part and dismissed in part; Guidance found incompatible with Convention and Charter.
Legal Topics
Legal Aid, Exceptional Case Funding, Interpretation of LASPO, Compatibility With ECHR and Charter, Article 6 and Article 8 Procedural Rights, Trafficking Victims, Family Reunion Rights
Public Law Human Rights Law EU Law Immigration Law Administrative Law Legal Aid Exceptional Case Funding Interpretation of LASPO +4 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 5 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

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

Judicial Review (consolidated Appeals) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper interpretation of section 10(3) of LASPO
  2. 2 Compatibility of Guidance with Article 6 ECHR and Article 47 Charter
  3. 3 Compatibility of Guidance with Article 8 ECHR in immigration cases

Ratio Decidendi

The Guidance misstates the effect of ECtHR and CJEU jurisprudence by imposing an impermissibly high threshold for exceptional case funding and wrongly excludes procedural obligations under Article 8 ECHR in immigration cases. The correct test is whether denial of legal aid would breach Convention or EU rights, assessed by reference to all circumstances and relevant case law. Family reunion applications are not in scope under LASPO, but ECF may be required where failure to provide legal aid would breach Article 8 rights.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed in part and dismissed in part; Guidance found incompatible with Convention and Charter.

Orders

  • Appeal in Gudanaviciene dismissed; legal aid required.
  • Appeal in LS allowed; refusal of ECF upheld.