In The Press

In this article in Free Movement, James Packer has written on how the Lord Chancellor has conceded that funding shall be granted for applications for legal aid where permission was refused on the papers. When representing Duncan Lewis in this challenge, James was successful in arguing that grounds for implementing a ‘payment-by-results regime’ was not conducive with the fact that initially a funding certificate was granted, meaning the Legal Aid Agency believed the case to have merit. James writes: ‘The decision in Ben Hoare Bell led to amendments to the Regulations that removed many of the worst aspects of the regime, but crucially the provision that if permission was refused then payment could not be made (other than in certain restricted circumstances, such as where the Home Office reversed a decision and then relied upon that reversal as a reason to refuse permission) was left largely intact.’ After Duncan Lewis’ judicial review was granted permission by the Divisional Court, the Lord Chancellor did admit that he has misinterpreted the Regulation 5A of the Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulation 2013 in refusing payment under these circumstances (read more on this here). In accordance with this result, clarification has now been published ‘Civil news: clarification on payment rules for judicial review’.