*/
THE Bar Council has taken the first step toward a judicial review (JR) of two consultations on Advocates Graduated Fees and Very High Cost Cases (VHCCs) which are being conducted by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and the Legal Services Commission (LSC) respectively.
The Bar Council has instructed solicitors to write to the MoJ and the LSC, in accordance with the pre-action protocol for judicial review claims. The principal basis for the Bar Council’s claim is that the consultation exercise is inadequate and unfair. The Bar Council’s decision to proceed with an application for JR has not been taken lightly. It has been more than twenty years since the Bar Council last instituted JR proceedings against the Government, despite a series of poorly handled reviews and efforts to reform the legal aid system.
Only this week, in their 9th Report (HC 322), the Public Accounts Committee heavily criticised the MoJ and the LSC for the confusion and uncertainty about their respective roles in relation to legal aid, the absence of a clear strategic direction and poor management of legal aid changes at the Commission and the LSC’s lack of understanding of the legal services market. Because of the Commission’s lack of basic information about its supplier base, it is unable to demonstrate that it offers the taxpayer good value for money. These findings, which follow last year’s highly critical report of the Justice Committee on family legal aid reform and a series of botched efforts to reform criminal legal aid, have systematically undermined the justice system. Despite these failings, the Bar Council has consistently put forward proposals designed to safeguard and promote the administration of justice, without seeking recourse to legal action.
However, the Bar Council considers that, despite its requests for a change of approach which recognises that the two latest consultations (and a third, as yet unpublished, on the introduction of a single graduated fee) are inextricably linked, theconduct of the consultation by the MoJ and the LSC has been so flawed that judicial review is the only option left open to the Bar. The full press release, including the comments made by Bar Chairman, Nicholas Green QC and the Chairman of the CBA, Paul Mendelle QC can be found on the Bar Council website
Only this week, in their 9th Report (HC 322), the Public Accounts Committee heavily criticised the MoJ and the LSC for the confusion and uncertainty about their respective roles in relation to legal aid, the absence of a clear strategic direction and poor management of legal aid changes at the Commission and the LSC’s lack of understanding of the legal services market. Because of the Commission’s lack of basic information about its supplier base, it is unable to demonstrate that it offers the taxpayer good value for money. These findings, which follow last year’s highly critical report of the Justice Committee on family legal aid reform and a series of botched efforts to reform criminal legal aid, have systematically undermined the justice system. Despite these failings, the Bar Council has consistently put forward proposals designed to safeguard and promote the administration of justice, without seeking recourse to legal action.
However, the Bar Council considers that, despite its requests for a change of approach which recognises that the two latest consultations (and a third, as yet unpublished, on the introduction of a single graduated fee) are inextricably linked, theconduct of the consultation by the MoJ and the LSC has been so flawed that judicial review is the only option left open to the Bar. The full press release, including the comments made by Bar Chairman, Nicholas Green QC and the Chairman of the CBA, Paul Mendelle QC can be found on the Bar Council website
THE Bar Council has taken the first step toward a judicial review (JR) of two consultations on Advocates Graduated Fees and Very High Cost Cases (VHCCs) which are being conducted by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and the Legal Services Commission (LSC) respectively.
The Bar Council has instructed solicitors to write to the MoJ and the LSC, in accordance with the pre-action protocol for judicial review claims. The principal basis for the Bar Council’s claim is that the consultation exercise is inadequate and unfair. The Bar Council’s decision to proceed with an application for JR has not been taken lightly. It has been more than twenty years since the Bar Council last instituted JR proceedings against the Government, despite a series of poorly handled reviews and efforts to reform the legal aid system.
Now is the time to tackle inappropriate behaviour at the Bar as well as extend our reach and collaboration with organisations and individuals at home and abroad
A comparison – Dan Monaghan, Head of DWF Chambers, invites two viewpoints
And if not, why not? asks Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Head of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, discusses the many benefits of oral fluid drug testing for child welfare and protection matters
To mark International Women’s Day, Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management looks at how financial planning can help bridge the gap
Casey Randall of AlphaBiolabs answers some of the most common questions regarding relationship DNA testing for court
