Top QCs unite to criticise legal aid cuts and judicial review reforms
A group of around 90 QCs have united to publicly criticise proposals to limit legal aid for judicial review, claiming that such a move would "seriously undermine the rule of law". In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, signed by silks including former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith QC, the former director of Public Prosecutions Lord Macdonald and Cherie Booth QC, the group argue that legal aid cuts and the associated reforms of judicial review will undermine Britain's global reputation for justice.
May 29, 2013 at 12:09 PM
2 minute read
A group of around 90 QCs have united to publicly criticise proposals to limit legal aid for judicial review, claiming that such a move would "seriously undermine the rule of law".
In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, signed by silks including former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith QC, the former director of Public Prosecutions Lord Macdonald QC and Cherie Booth QC, the group argue that legal aid cuts and the associated reforms of judicial review will undermine Britain's global reputation for justice.
Justice Secretary Chris Grayling announced last month that applications for judicial review – the process by which judges are asked to examine the legality of government decisions – will only receive legal aid funding once a judge has agreed the case is strong enough to proceed to a full hearing.
The QCs are concerned that the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 already severely limits legal aid for judicial review.
According to the letter, these plans will go further by refusing any legal aid to those who do not meet a residence test; refusing to pay lawyers in some cases for work reasonably and necessarily carried out; removing legal aid for complaints of mistreatment in prison; preventing small specialist public law firms from offering prison law advice; removing funding for test cases and cutting rates for legal advice and representation.
The letter says: "The cumulative effect of these proposals will seriously undermine the rule of law, and Britain's global reputation for justice. They are likely to drive conscientious and dedicated specialist public law practitioners and firms out of business.
"They will leave many of society's most vulnerable people without access to any specialist legal advice and representation. In practice, these changes will immunise Government and other public authorities from effective legal challenge."
The barristers have urged the government to withdraw the proposals, describing them as "unjust".
When the proposals for reform of the judicial review system were first communicated in November last year, Grayling said the number of applications received had risen from 160 in 1975 to 11,200 in 2011, with only one in six applications granted permission to be heard in 2011.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSlaughter and May Leads As Government Buys Back £6 Billion of Military Homes
2 minute readLatAm Moves: DLA Piper Chile, Brazil’s Demarest Build Out Disputes Muscle
Kingsley Napley and Lord Pannick Spearhead Private Schools' Challenge to Government VAT Policy
Spain Loses Appeal as London Court Rejects Claim of Immunity in €101 Million Arbitral Award Enforcement
Trending Stories
- 1Data Breach Lawsuit Against Byte Federal Among 1,500 Targeting Companies in 2024
- 2Counterfeiters Ride Surge in Tabletop Games’ Popularity, Challenging IP Owners to Keep Up
- 3Health Care Data Breach Class Actions Saw December Surge in NY Courts
- 4Florida Supreme Court Disbars 3, Suspends 11, Reprimands 1 in Final Disciplinary Order of 2024
- 5Chief Justice Roberts Ends Year With Defense Against 'Illegitimate' Attacks on Judiciary
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250