- BY Colin Yeo
Legal aid residence test found lawful by Court of Appeal
THANKS FOR READING
Older content is locked
A great deal of time and effort goes into producing the information on Free Movement, become a member of Free Movement to get unlimited access to all articles, and much, much more
TAKE FREE MOVEMENT FURTHER
By becoming a member of Free Movement, you not only support the hard-work that goes into maintaining the website, but get access to premium features;
- Single login for personal use
- FREE downloads of Free Movement ebooks
- Access to all Free Movement blog content
- Access to all our online training materials
- Access to our busy forums
- Downloadable CPD certificates
UPDATE 26/2/16: permission to appeal from the Court of Appeal has been granted so the Court of Appeal judgment will not be the last word.
Supreme Court grants our client @publiclawprojct permission to
challenge racially discriminatory Residence Test: https://t.co/hw46QnTnWZ— Bindmans LLP (@BindmansLLP) February 26, 2016
In Public Law Project v The Lord Chancellor [2015] EWCA Civ 1193, a judgment that contrasts markedly with that of the High Court, the Court of Appeal has allowed the Lord Chancellor’s appeal and found that the residence test for legal aid is lawful. Bindmans are acting in the case and have put out a good press release, available here: Senior judges split on legality of legal aid residence test.
Bindmans point to the mass of evidence from and about those affected by the residence test and the practical implications of the test, which the High Court had examined in detail. Not so Laws LJ giving the leading judgment in the Court of Appeal:
The Court of Appeal judgment does not discuss this or other evidence in the case. Instead, its focus is on two narrow legal issues. First, the Court finds that ministers may use secondary legislation to withhold legal aid from particular groups of people on cost-saving grounds alone, regardless of need. Secondly, it holds that legal aid is, in effect, a welfare benefit and so withholding on discriminatory grounds it from some of those who need it just as much as others is justifiable unless ‘manifestly without reasonable foundation’. The Court considered the test could be justified.
Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court is being sought and for what it is worth my guess is that this is a case that the Supreme Court will hear.
SHARE
