header-logo header-logo

11 April 2017
Issue: 7742 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Prisoners win back legal aid

Cuts made in December 2013 to legal aid for prisoners have been ruled unlawful on the basis of “inherent or systemic unfairness”, in a blow for the Ministry of Justice.

Widespread cuts to criminal legal aid for prisoners were introduced by the Criminal Legal Aid (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/2790). The Howard League for Penal Reform and the Prisoners’ Advice Service (PAS), both charities, brought a judicial review.

In R (Howard League and the Prisoners’ Advice Service) v The Lord Chancellor [2017] EWCA Civ 244, the court considered whether legal aid cuts should be reversed in five areas: certain pre-tariff reviews by the Parole Board; categorisation reviews of Category A prisoners; access to offending behaviour programmes (OBPs) and courses; certain disciplinary proceedings; and placement in close supervision centres (CSCs).

It held that the high threshold required for a finding of inherent or systemic unfairness had been satisfied in the case of pre-tariff reviews by the Parole Board, Category A reviews, and decisions as to placement in a CSC. This was particularly so “in the case of vulnerable prisoners, such as those with learning disabilities and mental illness,” Lord Justice Beatson said.

However, the court ruled the lack of legal aid lawful in the areas of OBPs and disciplinary proceedings.

Prior to the hearing, the government agreed to make legal aid available for cases concerning: mother and baby units; resettlement; licence conditions; and segregation through an exceptional funding scheme.

Simon Creighton, Bhatt Murphy partner, solicitor for the charities and representative for the Association of Prison Lawyers, said: “Access to legal advice for prisoners makes prisons fairer, safer and better at rehabilitating prisoners.

“This was first recognised in the Woolf report a quarter of a century ago and this judgment underlines that it is still true today.”

Frances Crook, the Howard League’s chief executive, said the decision would “make the public safer”, and sent a “clear message that important decisions about prisoners cannot be made efficiently or fairly in the face of these cuts”.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “We note the Court of Appeal’s judgment on changes made to legal aid regulations—introduced in 2013—and will consider whether to appeal.” 

Issue: 7742 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll