Social Welfare Lawyers in the Centre of Birmingham

Response to the Petition from the MoJ

We have now received a totally unhelpful response from the Ministry of Justice to the Petition – see attached.
Plus they manage to fail to mention the cases of R (Gudanaviciene & ors) -v- Secretary of State for Justice (which found the exceptional funding guidance to be unlawful) and R (Ben Hoare Bell & ors) -v- The Lord Chancellor which found the Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regs, with regard to payment in legal aid cases for judicial reviews, to also be unlawful. Must have skipped their mind!  We have just chased up the other main parties about the Petition and we will let you know if and when we hear from them.

Attachments

Total Attachments: 1

Response to the Petition from the MoJ (0 bytes)

Use Your Vote

After the last disastrous 5 years of the Coalition Government which has seen vast areas of law taken out of scope for Legal Aid, restrictions on the ability of Legal Aid firms to take judicial review actions and a 10% across the board cut in Civil Legal Aid fees, it is vital that supporters of Legal Aid and Access to Justice use their vote in the upcoming General Election.

R (Ben Hoare Bell & Others) -v- The Lord Chancellor

R ( Ben Hoare Bell, Deighton Pierce Glynn, Mackintosh Law, Public Law Solicitors and Shelter) -v- The Lord Chancellor and the Director of Legal Aid Casework [2015] EWHC 523 (Admin)

In April 2014 the Government introduced Regulations which meant that, in certain circumstances, legal aid providers would not be paid for running a judicial review case. In this judgment, the High Court has found those Regulations to be unlawful.

R (Ben Hoare Bell & Others) -v- The Lord Chancellor

R ( Ben Hoare Bell, Deighton Pierce Glynn, Mackintosh Law, Public Law Solicitors and Shelter) -v- The Lord Chancellor and the Director of Legal Aid Casework [2015] EWHC 523 (Admin)

In April 2014 the Government introduced Regulations which meant that, in certain circumstances, legal aid providers would not be paid for running a judicial review case. In this judgment, the High Court has found those Regulations to be unlawful.