Howard League for Penal Reform & Anor, R (On the Application of) v The Lord Chancellor

Howard League for Penal Reform & Anor, R (On the Application of) v The Lord Chancellor

The removal of legal aid from pre-tariff Parole Board reviews, Category A reviews, and decisions as to placement in close supervision centres results in an inherently or systemically unfair system, particularly for vulnerable prisoners, because the alternative safeguards are insufficient to ensure effective participation and fair decision-making. However, the threshold for systemic unfairness is not met in relation to decisions about offending behaviour programmes and disciplinary procedures, as other safeguards are adequate in those contexts.

Parties
Claimant: Howard League for Penal Reform; Claimant: Prisoners’ Advice Service; Defendant: The Lord Chancellor
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Full Hearing in the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Application for judicial review granted in part.
Legal Topics
Legal Aid, Systemic Unfairness, Access to Justice, Prisoners' Rights, Procedural Fairness
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Prison Law Legal Aid Systemic Unfairness Access to Justice Prisoners' Rights +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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Howard League for Penal Reform

Claimant

Prisoners’ Advice Service

Claimant

The Lord Chancellor

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Full Hearing in the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the removal of legal aid from five categories of prison law decision-making results in inherent or systemic unfairness contrary to common law principles of fairness and access to justice.

Ratio Decidendi

The removal of legal aid from pre-tariff Parole Board reviews, Category A reviews, and decisions as to placement in close supervision centres results in an inherently or systemically unfair system, particularly for vulnerable prisoners, because the alternative safeguards are insufficient to ensure effective participation and fair decision-making. However, the threshold for systemic unfairness is not met in relation to decisions about offending behaviour programmes and disciplinary procedures, as other safeguards are adequate in those contexts.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review granted in part.

Orders

  • Declaration that the removal of legal aid from pre-tariff Parole Board reviews, Category A reviews, and CSC placement decisions is unlawful due to systemic unfairness.
  • No relief granted in respect of offending behaviour programmes and disciplinary procedures.