header-logo header-logo

25 July 2014
Issue: 7616 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Legal aid

R (on the application of the Public Law Project) v Secretary of State for Justice [2014] EWHC 2365 (Admin), [2014] All ER (D) 146 (Jul)

The secretary of state proposed, by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Amendment of Schedule 1) Order 2014 (the statutory instrument), to introduce a residence test for cases most in need of public funding, under Pt 1 of Sch 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. The Divisional Court held that if the introduction of a residence test by secondary legislation exceeded the power to make delegated legislation conferred by the statute, it would be ineffective. The power to make delegated legislation had to be construed in the context of the statutory policy and aims such legislation was designed to promote. It was true that, if the purpose of the Act was correctly identified by the secretary of state, then restricting legal aid, not only to those with the greatest need, but to those with the stronger connection to the UK, fell within the purpose of the Act. However, it was not possible

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll