Jeanell Hippolyte v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWHC 2968 (Admin)
Joyce Oji, R (on the application of) v The Director of Legal Aid Casework
24 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1281 (Admin)
High Court
A Windrush victim was denied legal aid for her compensation claim. The court decided the compensation process didn't automatically give her the right to a lawyer because it wasn't a clear-cut legal dispute and didn't severely impact her life. Therefore, her request for legal aid was rejected.
Key Facts
- •The Claimant, a victim of the Windrush scandal, applied for legal aid (ECF) to assist with her Windrush Compensation Scheme (WCS) claim.
- •Her ECF application was refused by the Director of Legal Aid Casework.
- •The Claimant sought judicial review of the refusal.
- •The Claimant's WCS claim was subsequently refused.
- •The key legal question was whether the WCS process engaged Articles 6 or 8 of the ECHR, triggering a right to legal aid under LASPO s.10.
Legal Principles
Article 6 ECHR (right to a fair trial) requires a dispute over a right recognised under domestic law, the dispute must be genuine and serious, and the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right.
Grzeda v Poland
Article 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life) is engaged where state action has a significant impact on the essence of an individual's private and family life.
Gudanaviciene, Balijigari, XY
LASPO s.10(3)(a) mandates exceptional case funding if a refusal would breach Convention rights. LASPO s.10(3)(b) allows discretionary funding even without a Convention rights breach, considering the risk of breach and all circumstances.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012
The nature of the right in question (and whether it gives rise to civil rights for Art.6 purposes) is determined by the domestic court, unless the interpretation is arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable.
Grzeda v Poland
Outcomes
Claim dismissed.
The Court found that neither Article 6 nor Article 8 ECHR were engaged by the WCS process. Therefore, there was no mandatory requirement under LASPO s.10(3)(a) to grant ECF, and the discretionary power under s.10(3)(b) did not arise.
Similar Cases
Milton Vivian Thompson, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWHC 2037 (Admin)
Samer Alabboud Alhasan, R (on the application of) v The Director of Legal Aid Casework & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2031 (Admin)
ASY & Ors v Home Office
[2024] EWCA Civ 373
BCD (by his Litigation Friend EFG), R (on the application of) v Birmingham Children’s Trust
[2023] EWHC 137 (Admin)