Criminal legal aid solicitors involved in duty police station and court work have been granted a temporary reprieve ahead of a crucial judicial review case later this month.
Mr Justice Jay in the high court called a temporary halt to the controversial two-tier bidding process for duty providers shortly before Christmas, following an application for an interlocutory injunction brought by the Criminal Law Solicitors’ Association (CLSA) and the London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association (LCCSA). The court ruled that it was against the public interest to continue with the process pending the judicial review scheduled for the third week of January.
Criminal legal aid lawyers are concerned that the new contracts will destroy their livelihoods and reduce access to justice. They face a reduction in the number of contracts available from 1600 to 527, as well as an average 8.75% fee cut.
Jay J’s decision lands another blow on the beleaguered justice secretary, Chris Grayling, who was held in September to have run a consultation on the criminal legal aid reforms “so unfair as to amount to illegality” after he failed to disclose two independent reports by accountants KPMG and Otterburn.
Grayling has also suffered judicial review defeats over a proposed ban on prisoner’s books, and a proposal to make mesothelioma suffers pay costs.
Robin Murray, CLSA vice chairman, urged members to “hope for the best but prepare for the worst”.
“It may be that some of you will feel the tide has turned and will gamble upon our ultimate victory,” he said.
“That is a choice for each individual firm to make. We do believe in the justice of the professions cause and are confident that we shall prevail but it would be irresponsible for us as an association to advise people not to bid.”
The judicial review will be heard alongside a separate judicial review brought by the Law Society. Andrew Caplen, president of the Law Society, welcomed the injunction.
The current bids deadline of 29 January continues to stand, although the LCCSA has said it would ask for this to be extended to 45 days after judgment if they lose the judicial review.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
