The court’s recent judgment on legal aid represents a high-water mark of judicial intervention, writes Graham Zellick KC
Recently in these pages I chided a High Court judge for rejecting the argument that political parties were for certain purposes bodies exercising public functions. I described the decision as ‘formalism and judicial restraint of a high order‘ (‘Political parties: public or private?’). By contrast, the Divisional Court’s recent judgment in R (on the application of Law Society of England and Wales) v Lord Chancellor [2024] EWHC 155 (Admin) represents the high-water mark of judicial intervention.
Everyone is aware of the lamentable state of legal aid as a result of years of austerity and neglect. There had been no increase in criminal legal aid fees for 25 years and on top of that, there was a reduction in expenditure of 8.75% in 2014 to meet government spending targets. It is impossible to read the evidence in this case without feeling deep sympathy for the criminal legal aid practitioners, their clients and others in police custody
