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: Tuition Fees Increases to be Challenged in Court

Jeevan Vasagar, education editor, 24 June 2011
 

Two sixth formers have been granted permission to challenge the lawfulness of the government's decision to let universities triple tuition fees.

A high court judge ruled that their case should receive a judicial review, which is expected to take place in October.

The two sixth form students, Callum Hurley and Katy Moore, argued that the decision to lift the cap on fees contravened human rights legislation.

The hearing is due to take place in October. Two-thirds of English universities are proposing to charge the maximum fee of £9,000 a year from 2012.

Phil Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers, who is representing the students, said: "This is a major breakthrough and my clients now get a full hearing of their case which affects the next generations of students from less well-off backgrounds. This case challenges the government's bare-faced agenda to make our society one based on elitism and wealth."

The claim was lodged at the high court in March. The students' lawyers said it was brought on two grounds.

The pair argue that the rise in fees is in breach of the right to education protected in the Human Rights Act 1998. That right does not guarantee free higher education, but it does place limitations on steps that limit access to higher education, the pair's lawyers say.

They also say that the government failed to give "due regard" to promoting equality of opportunity as required under the Race Relations, Sex Discrimination and Disability Discrimination Acts.

Hurley, from Peterborough, said: "I'm delighted at the decision of the judge to grant us a hearing. It is such an important issue that will affect thousands of people and hinder the chances of poorer students who want to go to university.

Moore, from London, said: "I think it's great that we've been allowed a hearing in court. It's vital that we stand up for our generation and fight the government's decision to almost triple university tuition fees. We students are being let down by the government, as these changes to university fees will cause many bright and talented students from poorer backgrounds to be put off going to university due to the thought of thousands and thousands of pounds of debt.

"The government should be taking progressive measures to encourage more young people from state schools to go on to higher education, not making it more difficult for us to achieve the futures we want to achieve."

Students do not have to pay tuition fees upfront, but can borrow the money from government in the form of a student loan. They do not have to start paying this back until they graduate and are earning more than £21,000 a year, repaying 9% of their income above this threshold.

Proposals to charge more than £6,000 a year are being vetted by the government's Office for Fair Access, which will announce next month which ones have been approved.
 


Other stories

Click on a story to read

  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...
  Maya Evans case: secret courts, torture and avoiding embarrassment...