high court finds legal aid agency “asked itself wrong

7
You are here: Home / Procedure / High Court finds Legal Aid Agency “asked itself wrong question” about means assessment High Court finds Legal Aid Agency “asked itself wrong question” about means assessment 8 SEPTEMBER 2015 BY JAMES PACKER LEAVE A COMMENT In a judgment that may be of interest to legal aid lawyers, the High Court has overturned a rejection by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) of a legal aid claim by Duncan Lewis solicitors. The Legal Aid Agency should have considered whether the means assessment conducted by Duncan Lewis, which had assessed a client KW as having provided sufficient evidence to show that she came within the financial threshold for legal aid, had made a reasonable judgement. The LAA had erred in refusing to fund the case on the basis that the documents relied upon were outside of the ‘assessment window’, Cranston J held in the case of R (On the Application Of Duncan Lewis (Solicitors) Ltd) v The Lord Chancellor [2015] EWHC 2498 (Admin) . The LAA accepted that in fact KW’s income at the time meant that she qualified for legal aid. However they refused to make any payment to the firm on the basis that the evidence obtained before work commenced on the file did not state the exact amount of support provided under s.17 of the Children’s Act 1989. This section requires local councils to provide assistance to a child, usually though his or her parents, where to fail to do so would breach the child’s human rights. In practice the support is almost exclusively provided where the parents have no access to mainstream benefits, most often due to their immigration status. The High Court found that where such evidence is not provided, the firm of solicitors must ‘make a judgement on the basis of the evidence they had’. In so doing, they were bound to ‘have regard’ to the LAA’s ‘Guidance’ to determining financial eligibility for Controlled Work. This ‘Guidance’ gives examples of types of evidence that are, and are not, satisfactory for various forms of income, but does not directly stipulate the provision of specific evidence in relation to s.17 support. There was an implication in the Guidance that there had to be confirmation within the last six months that the support was still being provided under s.17, but that evidence had been obtained for KW before the file was opened. Updates and commentary on immigration and asylum law Search... ABOUT CONTACT ARCHIVES MEMBERS COURSES EBOOKS converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

Upload: others

Post on 01-Feb-2022

2 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: High Court finds Legal Aid Agency “asked itself wrong

You are here: Home / Procedure / High Court finds Legal Aid Agency “asked itself wrong question” about meansassessment

High Court finds Legal Aid Agency “asked itselfwrong question” about means assessment8 SEPTEMBER 2015 BY JAMES PACKER

LEAVE A COMMENT

In a judgment that may be of interest to legal aid lawyers, the High Court has overturned a rejection by theLegal Aid Agency (LAA) of a legal aid claim by Duncan Lewis solicitors. The Legal Aid Agency should haveconsidered whether the means assessment conducted by Duncan Lewis, which had assessed a client KW ashaving provided sufficient evidence to show that she came within the financial threshold for legal aid, had madea reasonable judgement. The LAA had erred in refusing to fund the case on the basis that the documents reliedupon were outside of the ‘assessment window’, Cranston J held in the case of R (On the Application Of DuncanLewis (Solicitors) Ltd) v The Lord Chancellor [2015] EWHC 2498 (Admin).

The LAA accepted that in fact KW’s income at the time meant that she qualified for legal aid. However theyrefused to make any payment to the firm on the basis that the evidence obtained before work commenced onthe file did not state the exact amount of support provided under s.17 of the Children’s Act 1989. This sectionrequires local councils to provide assistance to a child, usually though his or her parents, where to fail to do sowould breach the child’s human rights. In practice the support is almost exclusively provided where the parentshave no access to mainstream benefits, most often due to their immigration status.

The High Court found that where such evidence is not provided, the firm of solicitors must ‘make a judgementon the basis of the evidence they had’. In so doing, they were bound to ‘have regard’ to the LAA’s ‘Guidance’ todetermining financial eligibility for Controlled Work. This ‘Guidance’ gives examples of types of evidence that are,and are not, satisfactory for various forms of income, but does not directly stipulate the provision of specificevidence in relation to s.17 support. There was an implication in the Guidance that there had to be confirmationwithin the last six months that the support was still being provided under s.17, but that evidence had beenobtained for KW before the file was opened.

Updates and commentary on immigration and asylum law

Search...

ABOUT CONTACT ARCHIVES MEMBERS COURSES EBOOKS

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

Page 2: High Court finds Legal Aid Agency “asked itself wrong

The High Court accepted that it is ‘well known that the level of s.1 7 support is low.’ While local authorities differin the amount that they provide, it is at a subsistence level and barring exceptional circumstances, which didnot exist in KW’s case, there was ‘no prospect the support could come near to the financial eligibility threshold’.As the solicitors had carried out the other required aspects of financial assessment the decision to refusepayment would be quashed.

A spokesman for Duncan Lewis, commented: “As practitioners in the field will know well, in recent years the LAAhas become ever more demanding where evidence of means is concerned. We consider that these demandshave now become unreasonable, and have the appearance of attempts to find bases for refusal to pay ratherthan the safe-guarding of public monies. The LAA would do better to concentrate on the backlog of applicationsawaiting consideration, rather than seeking technical reasons not to pay a provider where it is clear the client infact qualified for legal aid.”

Share this:

FILED UNDER: PROCEDURETAGGED WITH: CASES, HIGH COURT, JUDICIAL REVIEW, LEGAL AID

About James Packer‘Exceptionally diligent’ and ‘Exceptional’ is what Legal 500 2013 says about James Packer. James has

10 24 7

Related

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

Page 3: High Court finds Legal Aid Agency “asked itself wrong

been recognised as a Leading Lawyer in his Field within the Chambers UK 2014 edition and has beenhighly recommended for his expertise by Legal 500 2013 for both hisPublic Law and Immigration work.

email address

The Free Movement immigration law blog is written by members of the immigration team at GardenCourt Chambers in London, ranked as top tier in both Chambers and Partners and The Legal 500. Theeditor is Colin Yeo.

SUBSCRIBE TO EMAIL UPDATES

OK

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

Page 4: High Court finds Legal Aid Agency “asked itself wrong

IN BRIEF

Very interesting, worrying and yet somehow unsurprising study on inconsistencies in asylum appeal adjudication byNick Gill, Rebecca Rotter, … [Read More...]

In the rather odd recently reported case of Iqbal (Para 322 Immigration Rules) [2015] UKUT 434 (IAC) the Presidentmakes the point that some … [Read More...]

Fundamental Rights Conference: a public law perspective Saturday 10 October 2015, 9:45 - 17:00 Venue: LSE NewAcademic Building 54 … [Read More...]

See older updates

MOST RECENT POSTS

Are refugees from Syria really refugees in law?Monday: 3:30pm. Like most asylum lawyer geeks -- you know who you are -- I was hanging on everyword of the Prime Minister when he … Read More >>

July 2015 immigration update podcastWelcome to the July 2015 edition of the Free Movement immigration update podcast. In this episode Istart by talk about Sir … Read More >>

Inspection finds Border Force Officers at Heathrow Airport fail to keepadequate documentationLast month’s report by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, Inspection ofBorder Force Operations at … Read More >>

The boy in the surfI cried when I saw the sequence of pictures yesterday on social media. My children are the same age.Were I in the position of … Read More >>

POSTS BY TOPIC

Posts by topicSelect Category

IN THE FORUMS

British citizenship for a child of a British citizen – born outside the UK by ZAHID AKBAR3 hours, 40 minutes ago

Genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a child by Salma Jaffer3 hours, 44 minutes ago

Can an overstayer study at Uni by Ferial Saada6 hours, 2 minutes ago

Challenging ATAS refusal – possible? by Subramanian Arunachalam1 day, 4 hours ago

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

Page 5: High Court finds Legal Aid Agency “asked itself wrong

Ex spouse of refugee – FLR (FP)? by Gordon Irving1 day, 6 hours ago

MEMBERS’ FEEDBACK

Feedback from the members-only training courses:

Thesummer2014asylumupdatewasexcellentandgreatguidetore

Thiswasacomplexareabutverywellandthoroughlyexplained… Go

FawziZuberi,

Extremelydetailednotesandguidanceandpracticalexamples.

Thiscourseisessentialforanyoneworkinginthisfield.Thecourseprovide

Agoodanalysis.Particulargoodreviewingtheappealsprovisionswhenthe

Alaha Faryl

Very usefulto havelinks torelevantforms.Quiz at theendenabledme tocheck myunderstanding andresultcame withfeedbackas to whymyanswer(s)werewrong. Apleasurable way toobtainCPD.

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

Page 6: High Court finds Legal Aid Agency “asked itself wrong

Find out more

AdamPipe,No 8Chambers

centprotectioncases.

ClaireSoltani, IrisLaw

odlegalsummaryofthepositionwhich Icanuseinpractice.

LighthouseSolicitors

sextremelyusefulguidanceand Iwouldwholeheartedlyrecommendit– Iwillcertainlybeensuringallmyteamta

StephenMedley-Daley,BroudieJacksonCanter

commencementhasjustbeenannouncedtoday.

LOGIN

Username

Password

Remember Me

LOG IN

Reset Password

Search...

ABOUT

Free Movement was founded by Colin Yeo in 2007 and Colin continues to edit the blog. Othermembers of the immigration team at Garden Court Chambers and some others also contribute. SeeAbout page for more details.

The blog permits 20 page views per month for free after which you need to sign up for amembership package. These start at £7.99. For more details see the membership page.

DISCLAIMER

The information and commentary on this blog is provided free of charge for information purposes only. The information and commentarydoes not, and is not intended to, amount to legal advice to any person. For specific legal advice please see the 'Contact' page.

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

Page 7: High Court finds Legal Aid Agency “asked itself wrong

We try to make sure information is accurate at the date it is published. Immigration law changes very rapidly, though. The older the blogpost on this site, the more likely it is that there have been legal developments since it was published.

Views expressed in blog posts are those of the author only, not Garden Court Chambers as a whole.

This website uses cookies. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Read MoreAcceptShare This

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com