Legal action
Is the removal of legal aid for prisoners in certain circumstances lawful?
Published: 3 October 2022
Last updated: 3 October 2022
What countries does this apply to?
Case details
| Protected Characteristic | Age, Disability |
|---|---|
| Types of equality claim | Other |
| Court or tribunal | Court of Appeal (Civil) |
| Decision has to be followed in | England, Wales |
| Law applies in | England, Wales |
| Case state | Concluded |
| Our involvement | Intervention (section 30 of the Equality Act 2006) |
| Outcome | Judgment |
| Areas of life | Justice and personal security |
| Human Rights law | Article 5: Right to liberty and security, Article 8: Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence |
Case name: R (Howard League for Penal Reform and other) v Lord Chancellor)
The relevant categories of decision-making were pre-tariff reviews by the Parole Board, category A reviews, decisions as to placement in a close supervision centre (CSC), decisions about offending behaviour programmes and certain disciplinary procedures. The claimants submitted that the removal of legal aid from these areas would result in inherent or systemic unfairness. The Howard League for Penal Reform and Prisoners Advice Service contended that in some circumstances, the prisoners affected by these types of decisions would only be able to effectively participate in the decision making process if they were legally represented.
Legal issue
Is the Criminal Legal Aid (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2013, which removed funding for 5 categories of decision making concerning prisoners from the scope of the criminal legal aid scheme, lawful?
Why we were involved
We work to make sure people can properly our access justice. This means that people can access redress when they are wronged and have a fair trial in the criminal justice system.
What we did
We intervened, using our powers under Section 30 of the Equality Act 2006.
What happened
The case was successful. The Court of Appeal concluded that the high threshold required for a finding of inherent or systemic unfairness was satisfied in the case of pre-tariff reviews by the Parole Board, category A reviews, and decisions as to placement in a close supervision centre (CSC). This is particularly so in the case of vulnerable prisoners, such as those with learning disabilities and mental illness.
Who will benefit
Prisoners can now obtain legal aid in the circumstances set out above so they can adequately participate in reviews.
Date of hearing
Page updates
Published:
3 October 2022
Last updated:
3 October 2022
