header-logo header-logo

17 March 2017
Issue: 7738 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Right to reply: Legal aid, judicial review, and the fight for justice

Response from Shaun McNally CBE, chief executive, Legal Aid Agency

The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) welcomes the opportunity to respond to John Ford’s article “Legal aid, judicial review, and the fight for justice” (NLJ, 3 March 2017, p 7).

The LAA is an Executive Agency set up in 2013 to commission and administer legal aid in England and Wales. The responsibilities carried out by the LAA include making decisions on individual cases on my behalf. As the Director of Legal Aid Casework, I am a statutory office holder appointed under the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). Decisions are taken independently from the Lord Chancellor in accordance with the rules and regulations set down by LASPO and the legal aid legislation. It would not be appropriate for the LAA to comment on the specific case highlighted by Mr Ford (“Miss A”) while the litigation is ongoing.

The LAA must make all decisions within the statutory framework provided by Parliament. We have clear internal processes and structures in place to ensure that our handling of cases is independent, high-quality, and consistent. This includes appropriate escalation procedures to make sure that complicated or high profile matters are considered by more senior staff, and a comprehensive system of review and appeal mechanisms that individuals can use to challenge our initial decisions.

It is incumbent on us to ensure that taxpayers’ money is used for the purposes intended by Parliament. We have a robust testing and assurance regime to ensure that decisions are made in line with the prevailing rules and regulations. The National Audit Office provide a further level of scrutiny. It is a matter of public record that the LAA has received a clean audit opinion since its inception.

The LAA publishes a number of documents on its website setting out transparently how we carry out our functions and manage public money. For readers interested in our work, these can be found here.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

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