Several leading British barristers have warned that reforms of the legal aid system by Chris Grayling, the Justice Secretary would seriously undermine the rule of law.
In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, 90 QCs have condemned the government’s proposals restricting the judicial review process as “unjust”. They suggested that “conscientious and dedicated” public law firms faced the risk of going out of business.
Last month Mr Grayling had announced that applications seeking legality of government decisions (judicial review) would only receive legal aid funding once a judge had agreed that the case was strong enough to proceed to a full hearing.
He said it was designed to weed out “weak” cases by forcing lawyers to “stop and consider” the strength of their application.
But the letter by barristers shows that within the Bar there was lot of concern over Mr Grayling’s proposals. The letter says that it was gravely concerned that practical access to justice was now under threat. The collective effect of these proposals would seriously undermine the rule of law, and Britain’s global reputation for justice.
The letter says that the move was likely to drive conscientious and dedicated specialist public law practitioners and firms out of business leaving many of society’s most vulnerable people without access to any specialist legal advice and representation.
The letter urges the Government to withdraw these unjust proposals.
It also points out that its signatories acted both for and against the government in judicial review cases, and claims that “abuses” by British officials and agents overseas would now attract “impunity.
This was believed to be in reference to cases such as the 2004 judicial review into whether British servicemen breached the human rights of 13 Iraqi civilians who died in the conflict, including Baha Mousa, a 26 year-old Iraqi man who died in British forces custody whose family later received a £2.8 million payout.
The Justice Secretary raised concerns last month while announcing the plans that legal aid was being used to fund a number of weak judicial review cases, incurring costs for public authorities and the legal aid scheme.
He added legal aid wasn’t free money and it came out of the pocket of hard working taxpayers. He said he hoped that lawyers would stop and carefully consider the strength of any case for a judicial review.
The proposed reforms are part of a wide-ranging package aiming to cut the £1.7 billion a year legal aid bill.