Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Law Society of England and Wales, R (on the application of) v The Lord Chancellor

[2024] EWHC 155 (Admin)
The Law Society sued the government for not giving enough money to lawyers who help people accused of crimes. The court said the government didn't properly think about how much money was needed and should redo its calculations, but the government wasn't breaking any laws by not giving more money.

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.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.