Key Facts
- •The Law Society challenged the Lord Chancellor's implementation of the Criminal Legal Aid Independent Review (CLAIR) Report.
- •The challenge focused on the insufficient funding increase for criminal legal aid and the failure to establish an advisory board to address unmet needs.
- •The Lord Chancellor implemented a fee increase of 11%, significantly less than the CLAIR report's recommendation of 15% (£100 million).
- •The Law Society presented evidence of severe working conditions, recruitment and retention difficulties, and potential legal aid deserts.
- •The court considered various legal principles related to the Lord Chancellor's statutory duty, access to justice, and the standard of review.
Legal Principles
Statutory Duty of the Lord Chancellor
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO), section 1
Tameside Duty of Sufficient Enquiry
Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1977] AC 1014
Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
Access to Justice
Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights; R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51
Standard of Review for Policy Challenges
R (A) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 37
Duty to Give Adequate Reasons
Horada v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2016] EWCA Civ 169; R (Hoareau) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2020] EWCA Civ 1010
Outcomes
Claim granted in part.
The Lord Chancellor acted irrationally by failing to consider whether lower fee increases would achieve CLAIR's objectives and by failing to conduct sufficient modelling to assess the impact of lower fee increases. The court found no breach of the statutory duty to provide legal aid.
Declaration granted.
The Lord Chancellor's failure to consider lower fee increases and to conduct sufficient modelling were irrational and breached his Wednesbury and Tameside duties.