Email
The justice secretary, Chris Grayling, relied on "bluff and bully" tactics to drive through legal aid cuts that will close hundreds of law firms, the high court has heard.
At the opening of a judicial review challenge brought by criminal solicitors, Grayling was accused of coordinating a "caricature of fairness" in a Ministry of Justice (MoJ) review.
The changes being introduced provide for cuts of 17.5% in criminal court fees and reduce the number of duty solicitor contracts for attending police stations and courts in England and Wales from 1,600 to 525.
The case has been brought by the London Criminal Courts Solicitors' Association and the Criminal Law Solicitors' Association, which say the consultation was unlawful. As lord chancellor, Grayling is named as the defendant in the hearing.
Appearing for the solicitors, Jason Coppel QC said the changes "put the criminal justice system at risk". "It's not based on any research," he said. "The very likely consequence is that hundreds of small firms will go out of business.
"In large areas of the country [people] will not have access to a solicitor and the quality of the service will suffer."
The challenge is focused on the adequacy of the MoJ's consultation process, crucial details of which, it is alleged, were withheld from the legal profession at the time. "Now that we have seen the research from [the accountancy firm] KPMG on which decisions are based," Coppel said, "it highlights the injustice of not disclosing that research. Some of this was deeply unfair and nothing less than an insult to those in criminal legal aid firms who stand to lose their livelihoods."
The lord chancellor himself, Coppel added, "got personally involved in this process and … caused much of the unfairness in these decisions … The claimants have a right to expect procedural fairness. What they got was a caricature of fairness: empty assurances, bluff and bully, divide and rule, fronted by a senior member of the government."
Evidence contrary to the MoJ's aims was suppressed, the court was told.
The Law Society, which represents all solicitors in England and Wales, was "manipulated" into agreeing to the changes, Coppel said, after it was threatened with alternative savings that the MoJ "had already decided not to do".
He added: "The lord chancellor personally misled [criminal solicitors] about the matter of the independent research which had been commissioned to assist him to make decisions. He personally refused to disclose that research, it would seem, for no other reason than that it might provide ammunition to critics of his proposals."
The judicial review challenge is the latest attempt by lawyers to reverse deep cuts to legal aid. There have been court boycotts and mass protests outside parliament.
A skeleton argument submitted by James Eadie QC, for the lord chancellor, insisted "there was a long and wide-ranging consultation process", involving two published consultation papers, public meetings, and extended discussions with the Law Society.
The points at issue "were plain to all consultees", Eadie said. The research papers in dispute – including a financial modelling exercise – addressed matters on which lawyers had been asked to comment.
"The lord chancellor ultimately made a decision – which is not challenged on its merits – to adopt measures to encourage market consolidation. The precise details … were decided by reference to a broad evidence base.
"The evidence and arguments put forward by the claimants suggest that disclosure would not have led to any points being made that the lord chancellor had not already considered."
The case continues. Judgment is likely to be reserved.
At a separate event on Monday, the lord chief justice, Lord Thomas, lent his support to the Law Society's campaign to improve access to justice. Addressing a meeting at the organisation's headquarters in London, Thomas said: "The next two years are going to be extremely tough in terms of financial expenditure. I would see access to justice as a campaign to try and persuade people that justice matters.
"... There's a need to ensure that lawyers are properly paid to attract the right people. We need to show how money spent early helps but also show we are innovative. You have a real fight on your hands but a fight is always a nice thing to have when the cause is just and justice is a just cause."
Andrew Caplen, president of the Law Society, said: "There needs to be a debate about access to justice, wider than just the responsibility of government. Up to 600,000 people have lost the ability to access civil legal aid. Without access to justice we are all the poorer. A great responsibility falls upon the government but it also falls upon the general public as well."
;