header-logo header-logo

05 December 2012
Issue: 7541 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Peers see off attacks on legal aid

Lord McNally promises amendment to controversial regulation

Justice minister Lord McNally has promised Parliament that the government will amend a controversial regulation that makes it “virtually impossible” for people to claim legal aid for judicial review, homelessness and habeas corpus cases.

Although peers passed the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2012 in the House of Lords this week, Lord McNally gave a promise to the House that reg 53(b) would be amended by April.

Under reg 53(b), the director of legal aid casework must be satisfied that the applicant has “exhausted all administrative appeals and other alternative procedures for challenge before bringing a public law claim”. This gives the director no discretion to grant legal aid, even where the matter is urgent.

According to the Legal Aid Practitioners Group, this would have forced people in urgent need of access to a judge to go through complex complaints procedures first and would delay their case for “months, if not years”.

Lord McNally told the House that the government would bring forward amendments to “introduce discretion into reg 53(b) so that the director of legal aid casework will have the express power to grant legal aid for public law claims, even if the alternative routes have not been exhausted, if he nonetheless considers that such an appeal or procedure would not be effective in providing the remedy that the individual requires”.

Peers also rejected a regulation that would have denied legal aid for people appealing welfare benefits in first-tier tribunals, in a rare fatal defeat of a government regulation.

Issue: 7541 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll