Civil legal aid as a constitutional imperative: A response to Lord Sumption

Having prefaced his tenure as a Supreme Court Justice with a controversial lecture that (as Sir Stephen Sedley put it) he used “to reprove the judiciary which he was about to join for failing to keep out of the political arena”, the end of Lord Sumption’s judicial career is now marked by an address that… Continue reading Civil legal aid as a constitutional imperative: A response to Lord Sumption

Special issue of Judicial Review on legal aid proposals

The Hart Publishing journal Judicial Review has published a special issue concerning the government's legal aid proposals. The special issue contains a joint opinion written by Michael Fordham, Ben Jaffey and Ravi Mehta on the legality of the proposed residence test for civil legal aid, together with the consultation responses of several groups, including the Bingham… Continue reading Special issue of Judicial Review on legal aid proposals

Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law responds to Government’s legal aid proposals

A couple of weeks ago, I posted a short piece on the Government's legal aid proposals. The Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law has now submitted its response to the Consultation Paper on legal aid. In its response, of which I am a co-author, the Bingham Centre argues that the proposed reforms will have a… Continue reading Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law responds to Government’s legal aid proposals

Legal aid, judicial review and the rule of law

The government’s proposals to make radical changes to the criminal legal aid system have received widespread attention. In particular, the proposal to introduce a system of tendering that would remove client choice has been strongly criticized as striking at the heart of the lawyer-client relationship. It has also been argued that it may amount to… Continue reading Legal aid, judicial review and the rule of law