London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v The Lord Chancellor

London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v The Lord Chancellor

The Lord Chancellor’s failure to allow consultees to comment on the Otterburn and KPMG reports, which contained the assumptions critical to determining the number of Duty Provider Work contracts, rendered the consultation process so unfair as to be unlawful. The consultation paper did not identify or explain the assumptions that would be used, and those most affected were denied a meaningful opportunity to respond. This procedural unfairness tainted the resulting decision with illegality.

Parties
Claimant: London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association; Claimant: Criminal Law Solicitors Association; Defendant: The Lord Chancellor
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed. Decision quashed in part.
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Consultation Requirements, Legitimate Expectation, Legal Aid, Judicial Review
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Procedural Fairness Consultation Requirements Legitimate Expectation Legal Aid Judicial Review

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association

Claimant

Criminal Law Solicitors Association

Claimant

The Lord Chancellor

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether procedural fairness required the Lord Chancellor to consult on and disclose the Otterburn and KPMG reports before deciding the number of Duty Provider Work contracts for criminal legal aid.
  2. 2 Whether there was a breach of legitimate expectation regarding following the Otterburn report recommendations.

Ratio Decidendi

The Lord Chancellor’s failure to allow consultees to comment on the Otterburn and KPMG reports, which contained the assumptions critical to determining the number of Duty Provider Work contracts, rendered the consultation process so unfair as to be unlawful. The consultation paper did not identify or explain the assumptions that would be used, and those most affected were denied a meaningful opportunity to respond. This procedural unfairness tainted the resulting decision with illegality.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed. Decision quashed in part.

Orders

  • The decision of 27 February 2014 that 525 Duty Provider Work contracts would be available under the new criminal legal aid arrangements is quashed.
  • No order quashing the 8.75% reduction in criminal legal aid fees.