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

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

The claimants failed to demonstrate an arguable case that the changes to criminal legal aid for prison law were unlawful. The consultation was not fundamentally flawed, there was no unacceptable risk of procedural unfairness inherent in the system, no unlawful interference with access to justice, and the policy was...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: The Howard League for Penal Reform; Claimant: Prisoners’ Advice Service; Defendant: The Lord Chancellor
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission to Apply for Judicial Review (rolled Up Hearing)
Outcome
Permission to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Legal Aid, Prison Law, Access to Justice, Judicial Review, Consultation Requirements, Discrimination, Irrationality, Ultra Vires
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Criminal Law Legal Aid Prison Law Access to Justice Judicial Review +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Howard League for Penal Reform

Claimant

Prisoners’ Advice Service

Claimant

The Lord Chancellor

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission to Apply for Judicial Review (rolled Up Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Lord Chancellor failed to consult adequately on changes to criminal legal aid for prison law
  2. 2 Whether the removal of certain areas from the scope of criminal legal aid creates an unacceptable risk of unfair decision making
  3. 3 Whether the changes unlawfully interfere with the common law and Article 6 ECHR right of access to justice

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants failed to demonstrate an arguable case that the changes to criminal legal aid for prison law were unlawful. The consultation was not fundamentally flawed, there was no unacceptable risk of procedural unfairness inherent in the system, no unlawful interference with access to justice, and the policy was not irrational or ultra vires. The appropriate forum for these concerns is political, not judicial.

Court Disposition

Permission to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.