PETITION OF WILLIAM BEGGS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW [2020] ScotCS CSOH_71 (14 July 2020)

PETITION OF WILLIAM BEGGS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW [2020] ScotCS CSOH_71 (14 July 2020)

The Scottish Legal Aid Board acted within its statutory discretion in refusing legal aid, as the petitioner had not exhausted alternative remedies and the refusal was neither irrational nor unlawful. The Board's decision did not breach the petitioner's right of access to justice or engage a civil right under article 6 ECHR.

Citation
[2020] ScotCS CSOH_71
Parties
Petitioner: William Frederick Ian Beggs; First Respondent: Scottish Legal Aid Board; Second Respondent: Scottish Information Commissioner
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
14 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Petition refused
Legal Topics
Legal Aid, Access to Justice, Freedom of Information (scotland) Act 2002, Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6 ECHR
Administrative Law Human Rights Law Freedom of Information Legal Aid Access to Justice Freedom of Information (scotland) Act 2002 Human Rights Act 1998 Article 6 ECHR

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Frederick Ian Beggs

Petitioner

Scottish Legal Aid Board

First Respondent

Scottish Information Commissioner

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Scottish Legal Aid Board's refusal to grant legal aid for an appeal to the Supreme Court was unreasonable or unlawful
  2. 2 Whether the refusal breached the petitioner's right of access to justice under common law and section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998

Ratio Decidendi

The Scottish Legal Aid Board acted within its statutory discretion in refusing legal aid, as the petitioner had not exhausted alternative remedies and the refusal was neither irrational nor unlawful. The Board's decision did not breach the petitioner's right of access to justice or engage a civil right under article 6 ECHR.

Court Disposition

Petition refused

Orders

  • Petitioner's first and second pleas in law repelled
  • Third plea in law for the Board and fifth plea in law for the Commissioner sustained