swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Legal Aid - From: 2002 To: 2002
This page lists 18 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Hale, Regina (On the Application of) v North Sefton Justices [2002] EWHC 257 (Admin)
14 Jan 2002
Admn
Auld LJ, Gage J
Costs, Legal Aid
The court considered the words "in the proceedings" in Regulation 7 of the 1986 Regulations. One issue was whether claims for attendance on the claimant prior to charge are for expenses incurred by the claimant "in the proceedings". The court decided that claims for attendance prior to charge were encompassed by those words. Instructions were given at a time when charge was imminent and the bail on which the claimant had been placed was about to expire.
Auld LJ said: "It seems to me that on a sensible approach it cannot reasonably be said that the advice sought and given at the initial attendance was not 'in the proceedings' simply because the charge had not yet been preferred."
Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 7
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Toth, Regina (on the Application of) v Legal Services Commission [2002] EWHC 5 (Admin)
17 Jan 2002
Admn
Mr Justice Hooper
Legal Aid
The applicant sought a judicial review of the Commission's refusal of his appeal against the refusal to remove a restriction on his legal aid certificate. The request had been refused on the merits after applying a cost benefit analysis, and he challenged the fairness of the procedure adopted on his appeal. He said that a substantial part of the costs already incurred had been so incurred because of the failings of his first solicitors. Held: The Commission had assessed the likely cost of the case, and made a decision within their discretion. At the appeal hearing he had not been given warning of the nature of the questions he would be asked to answer. The court held he could be expected to have provided all the information in his possession, and the procedure had not been unfair. The cost/benefit test was not ultra vires, and the application failed.
Legal Aid Act 1988 15(3)(a)
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Lea (Attorney-General's Reference No 82 of 2000); Regina v Shatwell Times, 28 February 2002
28 Jan 2002
CACD
Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Aikens and Mr Justice Pitchford
Criminal Practice, Legal Aid, Criminal Sentencing
The defendants had been tried in cases where the prosecution had employed leading counsel. The defendants had been refused similar representation. They complained that this created an inequality of arms, and an unfair trial under Human Rights law. The question also arose as to the maximum sentence allowable after a re-trial ordered by the Court of Appeal. Held: There was no interference with the right to a fair trial. The defendant had been properly and competently represented. As to sentence, the defendant had been first convicted, and sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment. The conviction was set aside and a re-trial ordered. The Act said that no greater sentence could be imposed on a second trial than on the first, but the Crown appealed the sentence as unduly lenient. Though cumbersome, the right procedure was for the Crown to make such an appeal on the first conviction. That could be heard before the appeal against conviction. The position on any subsequent trial would then be safeguarded.
European Convention on Human Rights Art 6 - Criminal Justice Act 1988 36
Del Sol v France 46800/99; [2002] ECHR 153
26 Feb 2002
ECHR
Human Rights, Legal Aid
European Convention on Human Rights
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
Fa'afete Taito v The Queen and James McLeod Bennett and 10 others v The Queen (Consolidated Appeals) [2002] EWPC 14; [2002] UKPC 15
19 Mar 2002
PC
Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Steyn Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Hutton Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Commonwealth, Crime, Legal Aid, Human Rights
PC (New Zealand) In each case the defendants had sought and been refused legal aid to appeal against some aspect of their conviction. The system for deciding upon whether they should be granted legal aid did not allow for their participation. They also alleged that the full appeal was then heard again without their involvement and on the basis that since the application for legal aid had been refused, the case was without merit, and the appeal itself was also refused. Held: The system did not properly implement that statute which had been brought in to correct defects in the court practice. Varying orders were made for the several individual cases.
[ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ Bailii ] - [ PC ]
Berry Trade Ltd and Another v Moussavi and Others Times, 10 April 2002; Gazette, 23 May 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 477; [2002] BPIR 881
21 Mar 2002
CA
Lord Justice Potter, Lord Justice Mummery and Lady Justice Arden
Legal Aid, Contempt of Court, Human Rights
The respondent had, it was alleged, had breached worldwide asset freezing orders, and was liable to be committed to prison. Legal Aid was refused by the Legal Services Commission. After several adjournments, the other party offered to pay for solicitor and counsel of his choice. He refused. Held: An application could not proceed without proper opportunity for the contemnor to obtain representation of his choice. Contempt proceedings are criminal proceedings for the purposes of Human Rights law. One more opportunity should be given for him to obtain legal aid, and the court would then look again at alternatives.
European Convention on Human Rights
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Malik, Re Solicitor's Act 1974 and Legal Services Act No 2 of 2002 [2002] EWCA Civ 490
22 Mar 2002
CA
Legal Professions, Legal Aid
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Oates Times, 20 May 2002; Gazette, 30 May 2002
25 Apr 2002
CACD
Lord Justice Rose, Mr Justice McKinnon and Mr Justice Pool
Legal Aid, Human Rights
The applicant had sought and been refused legal aid to support legal representation at a full oral hearing on her renewed application for leave to appeal against her conviction. She argued that the refusal of legal aid denied her human rights. Held: The legal aid system assisted her at trial, on advice with regard to an appeal, and on the first written application for leave to appeal. Where that application had been refused, there was nothing in human rights law to require legal aid to be extended further.
Criminal Appeal Act 1968 31 - European Convention on Human Rights 6.3(c)
Oliver Fisher (A Firm) v Legal Services Commission [2002] EWHC 1017 (Admin)
10 May 2002
Admn
Mr Justice Scott Baker
Legal Aid, Legal Professions, Professional Negligence
Gilliatt A solicitors' firm had been paid for work done in a case by the Legal Services Commission. The LSC had a right to a statutory charge against a property which had been preserved as a result of the proceedings. The solicitors should have reported to the LSC that they had recovered the property by December 1999. In February 2000 the firm applied to have the legal aid certificate discharged. It was not until August 2000 that they made the report to the LSC about the recovery of property giving rise to the statutory charge. The LSC did not actually receive the report until mid September. The LSC then applied to register a caution against the property. In the meantime the litigant had put the property on the market and a prospective purchaser had lodged an official search with the land registry. The upshot was that the purchaser's application to register title had priority over the LSC's application to register a charge. The property was transferred to the purchasers. By the time the LSC were told their charge had not been registered, the solicitors had been paid and the litigant had been paid by the purchaser. The LSC then tried to claw back the money paid out for costs from other sums claimed by the solicitors in respect of different cases. Held: Despite the fact that the solicitors had not done everything they should have done promptly, there was no actual power, on a construction of the regulations on the part of the LSC to take back the money.
Scott Baker J said: "[Counsel for the Commission] submits that . . Section 4(1)(b) of the Legal Aid Act 1988 gives the defendants a statutory power to operate a running account. This however does not in my judgment give a right to relocate or move money that has been earned and paid in case 'A' to case 'B' or to recoup money."
Legal Aid Act 1988 4(1)(b)
[ Bailii ]
Saxena, Regina (on the Application of) v Legal Services Commission [2002] EWCA Civ 895
24 May 2002
CA
Legal Aid
[ Bailii ]
Callery v Gray (1) and (2); HL 27-Jun-2002 - Times, 02 July 2002; [2002] UKHL 28; [2002] 1 WLR 2000; [2002] PIQR P32; [2002] 3 All ER 417; [2003] RTR 4; [2003] Lloyds Rep IR 203; [2002] 2 Costs LR 205
Sayers v Clarke Walker (A Firm) [2002] EWCA Civ 1110; [2002] 1WLR 3095
10 Jul 2002
CA
Costs, Legal Aid
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Bale, Regina (on the Application Of) v Legal Services Commission [2002] EWCA Civ 1234
26 Jul 2002
CA
Legal Aid
[ Bailii ]
B and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Leeds School Organisation Committee Times, 22 October 2002
13 Sep 2002
QBD
Scott Baker J
Education, Local Government, Legal Aid
The applicants sought through their litigation friends to oppose the decision of the respondent to close their junior school. The respondent said the proceedings were an abuse, having been brought in the children's names solely to obtain legal aid. Held: The Richmond case said that such applications should be made by the parent, not the child, save exceptionally. An application on the basis that the proceedings were an abuse having been brought in the child's name solely in order to obtain public funding of the case would require clear evidence, and no such evidence existed here.
1 Cites
Alliss v Legal Services Commission [2002] EWHC 9032 (Costs)
25 Sep 2002
SCCO
Costs, Legal Aid
[ Bailii ]
Patten (T/A Anthony Patten and Co) v Lord Chancellor [2002] EWCA Civ 1545
14 Oct 2002
CA
Rix LJ
Legal Aid
Application for permission to appeal by Mr Anthony Patten, a solicitor, in costs proceedings in which he has been the claimant against the Lord Chancellor.
[ Bailii ]
Brawley v Marczynski and Another [2003] 1 WLR 813; Times, 07 November 2002; Gazette, 09 January 2003; Gazette, 16 January 2003; [2002] EWCA Civ 1453
21 Oct 2002
CA
Aldous, Tuckey, Longmore LLJ
Costs, Civil Procedure Rules, Legal Aid
The defendants appealed an award of costs on an indemnity basis against them in the favour of a legally aided claimant. Held: Indemnity costs were often intended to indicate disapproval of a party's behaviour in an action, and were awarded in several and discretionary circumstances. It was not an objection of principle to say that a legally aided litigant would not recover the difference between standard and indemnity costs, and that therefore indemnity costs should not be awarded in favour of a legally aided claimant. Appeal refused.
Civil Procedure Rules
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
A v The United Kingdom Times, 28 December 2002; 35373/97; [2002] ECHR 805; (2002) 36 EHRR 917; [2002] ECHR 811
17 Dec 2002
ECHR
Human Rights, Defamation, Legal Aid, Constitutional
The applicant complained that the absence of legal aid to allow a challenge what had been said about her in Parliament by way of defamation, violated her right of access to court. Held: The right to absolute parliamentary privilege was within the margin of freedom enjoyed by a nation state. The applicant was not left entirely without remedy, and the freedom of parliament was properly to be protected. As to the availability of legal aid, limited legal advice was available, and a conditional fee arrangement might also have been available. "However, the right of access to court is not absolute, but may be subject to limitations. These are permitted by implication since the right of access by its very nature calls for regulation by the State. In this respect, the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation, although the final decision as to the observance of the Convention's requirements rests with the Court. It must be satisfied that the limitations applied do not restrict or reduce the access left to the individual in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired. Furthermore, a limitation will not be compatible with Article 6(1) if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is no reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved."
European Convention on Human Rights 6 8.1
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
