*/
The four criminal barristers challenging the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates (QASA) have been granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
In R (on the application of Lumsdon and others) v Legal Services Board , the appellants sought judicial review of the Legal Services Board (LSB) decision to approve the introduction of QASA.
The panel of three Supreme Court Justices refused permission to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s finding last year that the principle of independence of the advocate was not infringed by QASA, because it did not consider that ground to have a real prospect of success. However, permission to appeal was granted on the ground of whether the Court of Appeal had erred in law by failing to appreciate the effect of Regulation 14 of the Provision of Service Regulations 2009, which states that the authorisation scheme must have an “overriding reason relating to the public interest” and “the objective pursued cannot be attained by means of a less restrictive measure”.
The Court of Appeal had held that the LSB was entitled to a substantial margin of discretion in relation to the question of whether the decision to approve the scheme was proportionate.
A protective costs order has been made and the hearing has been provisionally listed for 16 March.
In the week before the Supreme Court announced its decision to allow the appeal, a Bar Standards Board spokesman said: “The Board decided we should in the meantime explore other ways in which we can properly protect the public from poor standards of advocacy.”
The panel of three Supreme Court Justices refused permission to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s finding last year that the principle of independence of the advocate was not infringed by QASA, because it did not consider that ground to have a real prospect of success. However, permission to appeal was granted on the ground of whether the Court of Appeal had erred in law by failing to appreciate the effect of Regulation 14 of the Provision of Service Regulations 2009, which states that the authorisation scheme must have an “overriding reason relating to the public interest” and “the objective pursued cannot be attained by means of a less restrictive measure”.
The Court of Appeal had held that the LSB was entitled to a substantial margin of discretion in relation to the question of whether the decision to approve the scheme was proportionate.
A protective costs order has been made and the hearing has been provisionally listed for 16 March.
In the week before the Supreme Court announced its decision to allow the appeal, a Bar Standards Board spokesman said: “The Board decided we should in the meantime explore other ways in which we can properly protect the public from poor standards of advocacy.”
The four criminal barristers challenging the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates (QASA) have been granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
In R (on the application of Lumsdon and others) v Legal Services Board, the appellants sought judicial review of the Legal Services Board (LSB) decision to approve the introduction of QASA.
Chair of the Bar reflects on 2025
Q&A with criminal barrister Nick Murphy, who moved to New Park Court Chambers on the North Eastern Circuit in search of a better work-life balance
Revolt Cycling in Holborn, London’s first sustainable fitness studio, invites barristers to join the revolution – turning pedal power into clean energy
Rachel Davenport, Co-founder and Director at AlphaBiolabs, reflects on how the company’s Giving Back ethos continues to make a difference to communities across the UK
By Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
AlphaBiolabs has made a £500 donation to Sean’s Place, a men’s mental health charity based in Sefton, as part of its ongoing Giving Back initiative
Professor Dominic Regan and Seán Jones KC present their best buys for this holiday season
Little has changed since Burns v Burns . Cohabiting couples deserve better than to be left on the blasted heath with the existing witch’s brew for another four decades, argues Christopher Stirling
Six months of court observation at the Old Bailey: APPEAL’s Dr Nisha Waller and Tehreem Sultan report their findings on prosecution practices under joint enterprise
Despite its prevalence, autism spectrum disorder remains poorly understood in the criminal justice system. Does Alex Henry’s joint enterprise conviction expose the need to audit prisons? asks Dr Felicity Gerry KC
With automation now deeply embedded in the Department for Work Pensions, Alexander McColl and Alexa Thompson review what we know, what we don’t and avenues for legal challenge
