11 Dec 2009
The Review Panel did not err in law; its role was correctly confined to determining whether the Agency's refusal of appellate aid was manifestly unreasonable or wrong in law, and on the material before it the Panel lawfully upheld the Agency's wide discretion under s9(4)(e); no vitiating legal error was shown and the appeal is dismissed.
28 Nov 2008
The Review Panel committed an error of law by failing to obtain and consider the specialist advisers' reports that were before the Agency; without those reports the Panel could not properly determine whether the Agency's decision was manifestly unreasonable, therefore the Panel's decision was set aside and remitted for reconsideration with those reports available.
8 Feb 2007
The Panel was correct to find the Agency's rigid application of a proportionality rule (limiting preparation to material directly relating to a single charge) was manifestly unreasonable and an error of law because it prevented counsel from meeting professional obligations and complying with BORA s24(d); however the Panel erred in holding that counsel must read all disclosed material 'thoroughly' without selectivity and erred in awarding 150 hours without providing reasons; the appropriate remedy is to remit the quantum issue for reconsideration with reasons, not to reimpose a proportionality…