The three were represented by law centres (Public Interest Law Unit and, now closed, Lambeth Law Centre), which applied to the LAA for funding in 2017. According to the PHSO report, published last week, however, the LAA delayed its response, which resulted in the law centres self-funding the trio’s judicial review against what they claimed was an unlawful policy.
By the time the LAA provided the funding, one of the clients was detained and had their passport removed. Moreover, the LAA was only able to provide funding from the day of the decision to grant it, which meant the full cost of the legal challenges was not covered.
The law centres won the judicial review, R (Gureckis) v Home Secretary [2017] EWHC 3298 (Admin).
The PHSO found the LAA’s decision-making processes were unfair to applicants and stated its delays were unreasonable as it put applicants in a more vulnerable position. The LAA provided the funding after seven weeks for one applicant, 13 weeks for the second and six weeks for the third.
The PHSO recommended the LAA apologise to the law centres, pay the outstanding costs of about £50,000 and ensure it provided fair outcomes in the future.
The regulations on backdating of legal aid certificates changed in 2019.
Julie Bishop, director of the Law Centres Network, said: ‘This is not an isolated incident: many law centres and other legal aid providers face delayed decisions by LAA.
‘In some cases, we as a membership body are called upon to help get the law centre clarity with mere hours before a case is due to be heard in court. In our experience, these problems stem from a working culture within the LAA, and have nothing to do with protecting the public purse. In effect, it restricts access to legal aid.’
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
