Public Interest Lawyers is an extraordinary firm of solicitors, who must be – certainly should be – the pride of the legal profession. Through their tenacity, quality and sheer hard work – often from unpromising beginnings and in dark times for public funding – they have single-handedly been responsible for shining the torchlight of legal accountability in a range of new areas. The work continues unabated. No barrister or judge, here or in Strasbourg, could have come to deal with the sorts of human rights issues which PIL continues to raise, but for their principled and brave pursuit of justice.

 

PIL demonstrates three further important things. First, how positive and constructive can be the use of public funding in public law cases, in the public interest. It has been hard. But PIL and the LSC have forged a partnership which is second to none, as to the importance of the cases that are brought, their success and their wider impact. Secondly, PIL demonstrates that London does not always lead, and a London-centric focus is neither helpful nor fair. This firm, from what are still sometimes thought of as “the provinces”, is the nation’s leader for human rights application in challenging cases. That PIL is looking, as a Birmingham-based firm. How refreshing for it to be that way.Thirdly, let it not be forgotten that PIL was set up as a new firm of solicitors. This is not the further and continued work of an established firm, set up long ago when times were different. This was an innovation; a leap of faith in the rule of law. It was a boat launched in a sea of uncertainty, which has turned out to be the flagship for public law accountability under the rule of law.

 

Michael Fordham QC
Michael Fordham QC
 
 

The Guardian: The End Is Nigh For The Unpopular Legal Aid Body, So Why Aren't We Celebrating?

Jon Robins
 
The move to subsume the Legal Services Commission into the justice ministry shows you should be careful what you wish for.
 
Better be careful what you wish for. For much of the Legal Services Commission's 12-year life, legal aid lawyers have fired vitriol – some fair, much not – at the commission and its policy dithering, bureaucratic bungling and stinginess with the taxpayers' money.
 
But now the end is in sight for the body that allocates legal aid and is everyone's favourite bogeyman. The LSC is going to be subsumed into its parent department, the Ministry of Justice, in an effort to reduce government spending on legal aid. So is everyone celebrating its demise? No. Is it the worst possible result? Yes, quite possibly.
 
At last week's Legal Aid Practitioners Group (LAPG) conference Sir Bill Callaghan, chairman of the LSC, reflected that it was not his job to "question policy decisions", adding that "in the overall scheme of things whether delivery of legal aid is overseen by the LSC or ministers wasn't the most important issue".
 
Delegates were right to anticipate a sizeable caveat, as Callaghan continued: "But knowing that we can shine the searchlight of justice on unjust acts is what keeps me and LSC staff motivated. That is important." He cited the Baha Mousa case, the groundbreaking ligation pursued by Phil Shiner on behalf of Iraqi civilians against the military and the subsequent investigation. "That inquiry could not have happened if the LSC had not funded a judicial review," he said, adding that he hoped the new director of legal aid casework, which will be created under the new legal aid bill, would be able to "draw on the support of colleagues within the new agency in making these difficult and controversial decisions". Quite.
 
It is heartening to hear the head of the LSC praise the often controversial Shiner. I recall the Daily Mail – under the banner headline "Murder Slur On Our Soldiers" – running a contentious cartoon of a large Iraqi at dinner with his wife, reading a phrasebook, with a solicitor hanging upside down from a rafter in the background. "I've just worked out what he said after 'I'm English'," she says. "It was: 'Do you want to sue anybody?'"
 
I interviewed Shiner in 2004, when tabloid opprobrium was being heaped upon him on a daily basis and politicians such as the Labour MP Gisela Stuart were dismissing his work as "disgraceful ambulance chasing". Shiner told me he had to remortgage his house to the tune of £35,000 to pursue the Iraqi cases. He complained of intimidation "through an increasingly draconian funding regime". "It seems the endgame is to force us to give up our contracts, go out of business or to an early death through the stress of it all," he said. I recall the LSC indignation at any suggestion of political interference in its decision-making. They did not like it and said Shiner's suggestion was an insult.
 
This year another of Shiner's Ministry of Defence-bothering clients, the peace activist Maya Evans, won a battle to block legal aid cuts for funding of human rights cases. The high court ruled that changes to legal aid last April to save money could not stand because of the "unlawful" influence of the defence secretary, Bob Ainsworth. Evans was trying to stop Afghans captured by UK forces being sent to prisons where they allegedly faced torture.
Ainsworth had argued that legal challenges against the MoD arising from military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan could have consequences for the UK's defence, security and foreign policy interests. According to Lord Justice Laws such concerns influenced the rule changes:

For the state to inhibit litigation by the denial of legal aid because the court's judgment might be unwelcome or apparently damaging would constitute an attempt to influence the incidence of judicial decisions in the interests of government. It would therefore frankly be inimical to the rule of law.

The justice minister, Jonathan Djanogly, also addressed the LAPG conference last week. He pointed out that a third of the MoJ savings were coming from the department:

One aspect of the department's savings is the abolition of the LSC. Once completed we anticipate that this alone will deliver around £8m savings per year to the department.

Fair enough, it seems right for the commission to share the pain – but not at the expense of proper systems to ensure there is no political interference.
 
This is far from clear. Clause 11(5) says there must be a provision for review, but clause 11(6) says only that there may be provision for appeals. The human rights group Justice said this was the minimum required to prevent the lord chancellor being seen as a judge in his own cause and to avoid "the absurdity of the lord chancellor being sued for refusal of legal aid in a judicial review, which substantively is made against another minister or, even, himself". It is not enough.
 


Other stories

Click on a story to read

  Rights Info project launched this week...
  No Prosecution for Alleged Paedophile Peer...
  ‘Pat would have represented the people who shot him’...
  Al-Saadoon Final Judgment...
  The government’s improper campaign against one solicitor follows years of disdain for access to just...
  Unprotected by the state...
  Freedom of lawyers to represent their clients...
  Haldane letter to Law Society...
  LegalAction feature - "I'm just a Lawyer doing my job. I've done nothing wrong."...
  Voting Rights for Refugees...
  New Policy Deferred as UK Visa and Immigration Seek Further Consultation...
  Failed Asylum Seekers forced to travel to Liverpool to submit claims...
  UK links to torture go beyond complicity to active involvement...
  Newsweek: “British Soldiers Accused of Torture and Abuse During Iraq Occupation” ...
  Press Release: Public Interest Lawyers' Response to the Al-Sweady Inquiry Report...
  Public Interest Lawyers reconstitutes as a Non-Governmental Organisation...
  Inquest Reports on Suicide in Serco-run Prison...
  Independent on Sunday: New torture claims go to court...
  Media Comment: Bad Month for MoJ...
  'No justice in sight for Iraqi victims of alleged murder, rape, and torture'...
  At least 30 other 'Baha Mousa' style killings ...
  Press Release : Coalition Minister is ‘Minded to’ Duck Out of Library Inquiry....