The Ministry of Justice and Michael Gove have been humiliated after the Supreme Court threw out their case halfway through its scheduled hearing.
In 2013 the MoJ, under then justice secretary Chris Grayling, proposed introducing a residency test for people claiming legal aid. Under the plans, only individuals deemed to have been lawfully resident in the UK or one of its territories for at least a year would be entitled to legal aid, other than members of the armed forces, their immediate families, and asylum seekers.
The MoJ argued that legal aid was a scarce, taxpayer-funded resource which should prioritise those with a "strong connection" to the UK. However, opponents raised concerns about the impact of the test on vulnerable groups including victims of trafficking, domestic violence and forced marriage, and on those with mental health issues.
In 2014, the High Court threw out gaffe-prone Grayling's test on the grounds that he should have introduced it as primary legislation in parliament, rather than attempt to smuggle it though as secondary legislation. Last November the Court of Appeal overturned that judgment, ruling that discriminating by place of residence was acceptable because it was not a characteristic like sex or race "specially protected by the law”. But the Public Law Project challenged the CofA decision in the Supreme Court and, despite having spent most of his tenure as Justice Minister undoing his predecessor's bungles (reversing MoJ plans to help run Saudi jails and unbanning prisoner access to books), the Lord Chancellor allowed the MoJ to fight on.
However on Monday, halfway through the two day hearing, the seven Supreme Court justices stopped the case and announced that they were unanimously finding against the MoJ and allowing the appeal. Led by Lord Neuberger, who recently traumatised ECJ judges after they bored him, the Supremes ruled that the residence test was ultra vires, unjustifiably discriminatory and breached common law and the Human Rights Act 1998.
Victorious Bindmans solicitor John Halford, who represented the PLP, said that the British legal system was "rooted in two fundamental principles – that all equally enjoy the protection of our laws and all are accountable to our courts", and that Gove "planned to undermine them" by withholding legal aid from those who failed the residence test. The decision, he added, "is a timely warning to any Lord Chancellor of the risks of tampering with the scales of justice".
A spokesperson for the MoJ said, “We are of course very disappointed with this decision. We will now wait for the full written judgment to consider”.
Tip Off ROF
In 2013 the MoJ, under then justice secretary Chris Grayling, proposed introducing a residency test for people claiming legal aid. Under the plans, only individuals deemed to have been lawfully resident in the UK or one of its territories for at least a year would be entitled to legal aid, other than members of the armed forces, their immediate families, and asylum seekers.
The MoJ argued that legal aid was a scarce, taxpayer-funded resource which should prioritise those with a "strong connection" to the UK. However, opponents raised concerns about the impact of the test on vulnerable groups including victims of trafficking, domestic violence and forced marriage, and on those with mental health issues.
In 2014, the High Court threw out gaffe-prone Grayling's test on the grounds that he should have introduced it as primary legislation in parliament, rather than attempt to smuggle it though as secondary legislation. Last November the Court of Appeal overturned that judgment, ruling that discriminating by place of residence was acceptable because it was not a characteristic like sex or race "specially protected by the law”. But the Public Law Project challenged the CofA decision in the Supreme Court and, despite having spent most of his tenure as Justice Minister undoing his predecessor's bungles (reversing MoJ plans to help run Saudi jails and unbanning prisoner access to books), the Lord Chancellor allowed the MoJ to fight on.
 |
That judgment in full |
However on Monday, halfway through the two day hearing, the seven Supreme Court justices stopped the case and announced that they were unanimously finding against the MoJ and allowing the appeal. Led by Lord Neuberger, who recently traumatised ECJ judges after they bored him, the Supremes ruled that the residence test was ultra vires, unjustifiably discriminatory and breached common law and the Human Rights Act 1998.
Victorious Bindmans solicitor John Halford, who represented the PLP, said that the British legal system was "rooted in two fundamental principles – that all equally enjoy the protection of our laws and all are accountable to our courts", and that Gove "planned to undermine them" by withholding legal aid from those who failed the residence test. The decision, he added, "is a timely warning to any Lord Chancellor of the risks of tampering with the scales of justice".
A spokesperson for the MoJ said, “We are of course very disappointed with this decision. We will now wait for the full written judgment to consider”.
Comments
77
71
75
88