The Round-Up: Legal Aid for prisoners in the Court of Appeal

18 April 2017 by

The Court of Appeal last week partially granted an application for judicial review of the cuts to Legal Aid in certain categories of prison law. The judgment may change the face of legal representation for prisoners across the UK.

The 2013 changes to legal aid

In December 2013 changes to the legal aid scheme for prisoners were brought into force. This removed a number of types of cases involving prisoners from the scope of legal aid. These included five areas which were the subject of this week’s case:

“certain pre-tariff reviews of Category A prisoners;

categorization reviews of Category A prisoners;

Access to offending behavior programs and courses;

Certain disciplinary proceedings;

And placement in close supervision centres.”

The Howard League explains that pre-tariff reviews are those cases where a prison serving an indeterminate sentence has been referred to the Parole Board for advice on a move to open conditions.

Category A prisoners are those “whose escape would be highly dangerous to the public, or the security of the State, and for whom the aim must be to make escape impossible.”

Close supervision centres house the most disruptive or dangerous prisoners who pose a risk to other prisoners.

The Howard League for Penal Reform and the Prisoners’ Advice Service, both charities which provide advice and advocacy for prisoners in the UK, sought judicial review of the changes.

The government’s response to the case

Before the hearing of this case, the government agreed that legal aid would remain available for certain classes of cases. These included those brought by prisoners in mother and baby units, and those involving resettlement, licence conditions and segregation, through an exceptional funding scheme.

The judgment

In order to succeed, the claimants had to demonstrate the “high threshold required for a finding of inherent or systemic unfairness.” In deciding the claim, the Court considered a number of factors, summarized as: the importance of the issues at stake; the complexity of the procedural, legal and evidential issues in the cases without legal aid; and the ability of the individual to represent himself without legal assistance, having regard to his age and mental capacity, and the other assistance that is available.

Having regard to the variety of cases which are decided in the five scenarios which were subject to the judicial review, the court focused on vulnerable prisoners, which as those with learning disabilities and mental illness.

In relation to pre-tariff reviews by the Parole Board, Category A reviews, and decisions as to placement in a close supervision centre, the claimants succeeded. The Court of Appeal held that the “high threshold required for a finding of inherent or systemic unfairness” had been satisfied.

The Court said that it recognised that there may be safeguards to protect prisoners’ interests other than legal aid. However, it said that:

“at a time when…the evidence about prison staffing levels, the current state of prisons, and the workload of the Parole Board suggests that the system is under considerable pressure, the system has at present not got the capacity sufficiently to fill the gap in the run of cases in those three areas.”

The claimants did not make out their claim of inherent and systemic unfairness in relation to access to offender behavior programs, and disciplinary proceedings.

Reactions to the decision

Frances Crook, the Chief Executive of the Howard League, said that the judgment vindicated the organisation’s concern that the cuts “presented grave risk that prisoners would become stuck in a broken system.”

The judgment was also welcomed by Deborah Russo of the Prisoners’ Advice Service, who said it was “an unprecedented and groundbreaking legal victory in which the vulnerability of the prison population is fully recognized as a key factor in its limited ability to access justice.”

The New Law Journal has reported that Simon Creighton, partner at Bhatt Murphy Solicitors and solicitor for the charities, said “access to legal advice for prisoners makes prisons fairer, safer and better at rehabilitating prisoners.”

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice said “we note the court of appeal’s judgment on changes made to legal aid regulations – introduced in 2013 – and will consider whether to appeal.”

In the news

Legal Voice outlines a new report on the House of Commons’ Joint Committee on Human Rights. The report raises concerns about the effect of the increase in employment tribunal fees in 2013. Human Rights and Business 2017 cites statistics from the Ministry of Justice which have shown a 43% drop in race discrimination claims, and a fall of 64% in religion or belief discrimination claims. The report also notes the disproportionate effect on women, as four-fifths of claimants for sex discrimination and equal pay cases are women. The MoJ has argued that the fee changes and introduction of ACA’s early conciliation service has helped “many more people to resolve their workplace disputes while avoiding the stress and cost of the tribunal.”

The Guardian reports on a number of complaints of torture and unlawful imprisonment of gap men in Chechnya. The article, which includes graphic description of abuse, outlines the reports of a “shocking anti-gay campaign…in the Russian republic of Chachnya.” It is said to have affected up to several hundred men, some of whom are believed to have been killed. The Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta first reported the story, and claim to have evidence that at least three gay men have been killed. The Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has written on Twitter that the alleged “ill-treatment” of the men is “outrageous.”

Amnesty International have published the 2016 Global Review of the Death Penalty. It purports to show that Chinese authorities deliberately obscure the number of executions in the country. It also states that China does not report foreign nationals given death sentences, despite at least 11 executions being reported in international media. The report also focuses on “top five” executioners in the world: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Pakistan.

In the courts

Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children v Gard: A press release giving a summary of reasons for this decision handed down on 11th April 2017 has been published. The case involves a young child, Charlie Gard, who has a terminal illness. Charlie’s parents want to take him to the USA to undergo a medical procedure known as ‘nucleoside therapy.’ The Hospital applied for an order that it was lawful and in Charlie’s best interests for artificial ventilation to be withdrawn, for Charlie to receive only palliative care, and for Charlie not to undergo nucleoside therapy. Mr Justice Francis found that it was in Charlie’s best interests for the orders to be granted, despite the objection of Charlie’s parents to the Hospital’s application. The full judgment is awaited.

R (on the application of Conway) v The Secretary of State for Justice: The Court of Appeal has allowed a man who suffers from motor neurone disease to challenge section 1 of the Suicide Act. The applicant seeks a declaration that the ban on assisted dying in the UK is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Lawyers for Mr Conway argued that the case raises issues of general public importance, and had a reasonable prospect of success. Rosalind English has written an article on this blog on the judgment.

by Thomas Beamont

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: