12 Jun 2017
The Associate Judge did not err in refusing to appoint counsel assisting because the appointment is discretionary, there was no sufficient public interest or novel legal issue requiring independent assistance, previous ad hoc appointments do not create entitlement, and the role of counsel assisting is to assist the Court not to act as unpaid counsel for the applicant; the review application is refused.
7 Apr 2017
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the appeal was moot: the amended statement of claim materially differed from the claim the Tribunal had considered, meaning the Commissioner and Tribunal must be allowed to reassess the clarified claim against the statutory legal aid criteria; the issues were case-specific and not of sufficient general or public importance to justify a second appeal, and there was no evidence a fresh application would be mishandled.
14 Apr 2016
Court ordered limited discovery: internal documents revealing the Commissioner's reasoning on s 10(2) must be disclosed subject to claims of legal advice privilege; Commissioner must disclose letters to Ms Marshall's counsel dated 12 March and 29 April 2015; panel advice must be produced in redacted form to applicants' counsel (R J Hooker) under strict non-disclosure and non-use conditions; timetable for identification of privileged material and further disclosure set out.
21 Aug 2015
Supreme Court held that the Commissioner may consider apparent merits and may refuse legal aid for appeals that are devoid of merit, but an affirmative finding of merit is not a precondition to grant; 'grounds of the appeal' permits only a preliminary/formal check for an arguable basis and merits assessment beyond that threshold is primarily for the court; applying s 8 balancing and material facts the Commissioner's refusal was unreasonable and legal aid for the conviction appeal was restored.
20 Mar 2014
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a refusal of leave to the Court of Appeal; treating the filing as an application for leave to appeal the High Court, the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances under s14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 warranting leave, given there was no appearance of error and the Limitation Act 1950 likely barred the claim as time began to run by March 2005.
30 Jul 2010
LSA and LARP misapprehended the nature of the defence by treating allegations of police mistreatment as separate from the defence to resisting arrest; that error of law justified allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to LARP to reconsider whether legal aid should be granted in light of the correct characterisation of the defence, while Clean Slate and mental health issues must be raised first with the LSA before LARP can lawfully consider them.
22 Apr 2009
The Court extended time for filing to 20 October 2008 but dismissed the substantive appeal: the Review Panel did not err in law or act manifestly unreasonably in upholding the Agency's decision to decline legal aid because the Agency properly assessed the applicant's means by attributing the debt owed by the trust to the applicant under Regulation 8(4)-(5) and s113(1)(j), and Regulation 8 does not conflict with the statutory purpose in s3.
23 May 2007
The Agency was not legally required to treat availability of HDC remedies as a mandatory relevant consideration when deciding civil legal aid applications under the Legal Services Act 2000; HDC remedies lie outside the statutory scope of legal services for which aid is granted, the Act's criteria and regulations govern means and eligibility, and the Agency's decision to grant and to confirm aid to Ellis was within its statutory discretion and not unreasonable.
7 Mar 2007
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the habeas corpus writ became moot on the applicant's release; the costs application against the Ministry of Justice failed because the Ministry was not at fault and scheduling delays were attributable to counsel's preparation needs and the unavailability of Acting Judges after a recusal.
21 Feb 2006
The High Court dismissed the Agency's appeal, holding the Review Panel's decision to grant legal aid was correct because the Agency misapplied the legal tests in s9(3) and s9(4)(d)(i), failed to weigh benefits against costs as required by Timmins, and erroneously treated unsuccessful judicial review as dispositive of reasonable grounds; credibility findings can be subject to review in appropriate cases and the provider had standing to lodge the review on behalf of his clients.