"We cannot part with this case without paying tribute to the claimants\' legal advisers who although greatly outnumbered by the Secretary of State\'s legal team have persisted with their requests for disclosure skilfully and with commendable determination." (per Lord Justice Scott-Baker in  R (on the application of Al-Sweady and Others) v The Secretary of State for Defence [2009] EWHC 2387 (Admin)).
Lord Justice Scott-Baker
 
 

Ministry of Defence attempt to cut off funding for public interest torture litigation – High Court to hand-down Judgment tomorrow (Royal Courts of Justice, 10am)

The High Court will tomorrow hand-down its judgment in the judicial review case brought by Maya Evans, a peace and human rights activist, challenging the decision of the Ministry of Justice to cut off legal aid funding for cases brought wholly in the public interest. At the time of this decision, in March 2010, a number of cases had been brought in the public interest challenging Government complicity in torture. 
 
At the hearing on 5 April 2011 the court heard troubling evidence that the former Secretary of State for Defence and Minister for Armed Forces personally and repeatedly intervened with the Ministry of Justice to ensure that these cases were cut off at their source. See The Guardian 5 April 2011.1

Judgment is handed-down tomorrow at 10am at the Royal Courts of Justice.

Speaking before the hearing on 5 April 2011, Maya Evans said:

The Ministry of Defence has tried to cut off funding for politically inconvenient cases, but they have been caught in the act by the documents that have been disclosed in this case.

Her solicitor, Daniel Carey, said:

This case is not about savings for the public purse – the Ministry of Justice estimates that ruling out funding for these cases in the future will save between £50,000 to £100,000 per annum – that’s less than some MPs’ expenses claims. This case is all about the Governments attempts to avoid accountability under the guise of cutting the deficit. Any such attempt should be wholly rejected by anyone who cares about the rule of law.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/apr/05/defence-lobby-legal-aid-block


Other stories

Click on a story to read

  HIGH COURT RULES IN HUNDREDS OF IRAQI UNLAWFUL KILLINGS AND TORTURE CASES...
  BBC: Baha Mousa book and Marie Colvin honoured by Orwell Prize ...
  HIGH COURT GRANTS PERMISSION TO PROCEED WITH JUDICIAL REVIEW IN AFGHAN KILLINGS CASE...
  Guardian: British soldier under investigation for murder over shooting of young Afghans...
  Guardian: Labour abstention on workfare bill prompts party infighting...
  The Independent: First Al-Sweady witnesses to appear...
  DWP seeks law change to avoid benefit repayments after Poundland ruling...
  Judicial Review launched against Birmingham City Council over cuts to "Shelforce" - a supported disa...
  The Times: Lawyer of the week – Tessa Gregory...
  BBC: Al-Sweady inquiry opens in UK into deaths of Iraqis...
  Birmingham City Council threatened with Judicial Review proceedings over cuts to 'Shelforce' - a sup...
  Open Democracy: Home Secretary, please call off the attack on kidney patient Roseline Akhalu ...
  Court of Appeal Rules that the Government’s “Back to Work” Regulations are Unlawful and Must Be Quas...
  Verdict on Government’s “Back to Work” schemes will be handed down tomorrow, Tuesday 12 February 201...
  Verdict on Government’s “Back to Work” schemes will be handed down on Tuesday 12 February 2013 at 10...
  BBC: New Iraq abuse cases by British forces go to High Court...
  Public Interest Lawyers respond to false reports in the Sun Newspaper regarding cases relating to Af...
  Legal Challenge to Doncaster Mayor's Decision to Reduce Library Funding wins Permission to Appeal...
  Observer: Is Britain guilty of systemic torture in Iraq?...
  Ali Zaki Mousa (no.2) and Others v Secretary of State for Defence...
  Legal Challenge to Cuts to North Somerset Youth Services Wins Permission to Appeal...
  New Statesman: The trials of Roseline Akhalu...