R (Patterson) v Legal Services Commission
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE McCOMBE |
| Judgment Date | 09 February 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWHC 402 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 09 February 2010 |
| Docket Number | CO/8487/2009 |
[2010] EWHC 402 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN's BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Before: Mr Justice Mccombe
CO/8487/2009
MR S FIELD (instructed by SWAIN & CO.) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
MISS F SCOLDING (instructed by LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSION) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
: I have before me a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review brought by Mr Phillip Patterson against the Legal Services Commission. Permission was refused by Sir Thayne Forbes on 8 October and the application is now renewed. In the course of argument Mr Field, who appears for the claimant, submitted that this was a case where the proposed consultation of his client and others like him was woefully inadequate. In contrast it is argued on behalf of the defendant that this claim is utterly hopeless. Both arguments are at the extreme ends, it can be seen, of the spectrum. The arguments have been carefully and skillfully presented and I pay tribute to them, and including the fact particularly that Mr Field appears before this court with his instructing solicitors pro bono. That is much appreciated by the court.
The problem in this case concerns proposals by the defendant commission to implement or consult upon changes in the system for remuneration of solicitors and barristers engaged in prison law. Those, I am told, exclude claims like claims for damages for breaches of human rights but cover a large range of prison law and matters within the general criminal law contract. The consultation of the legal profession is conducted in the context of a remuneration process of the criminal law contract as a whole.
I am told in the evidence that the expenditure of public money on prison law matters has escalated by a considerable amount over the last 10 years. The figures are indeed very large, and do not need to be set out in this short judgment. The Legal Services Commission saw themselves obliged to consult on changes to prevent the spiraling of public expenditure on this aspect of their duties.
In the course of February to May of last year they issued, and awaited responses to, a consultation paper on their proposals. The proposals were envisaged in two potential stages, what have been called “Phase 1” and “Phase 2”. I think it is fair to say that when one looks at the Phase 1 proposals they are substantially geared to the manner in which prison law advice and assistance is provided to clients and remunerated rather than the forms of service that are provided. Phase 2, upon which the paper was focused but to a lesser degree perhaps, dealt more directly with the forms of advice and services that might be offered.
A reading of the document suggests to me that Phase 1 was of principal interest to solicitors and barristers providing service to prisoners. That is not to say prisoners were not affected at all, but nonetheless the effect of the proposals upon them were perhaps less dramatic than those envisaged by Phase 2.
In making their consultation, in paragraph 5.1 and 5.2 of the consultation paper the commission said this:
“We have identified 3 main groups or sectors that would be affected by the proposals. They are prison law clients, providers of prison law services, other criminal justice system agencies. The potential impacts upon these main groups are discussed in detail below:
Prison law clients. The proposals in Phase 1 are not likely to have significant impact upon clients where there are human rights issues involved in the case. We believe practitioners will continue to be contacted by prisoners and practitioners will continue to deliver services as they do now.”.
I have been taken to the well known principles of consultations, the four “Sedley Principles” as they are often called, encapsulated in the judgment of Hodgson J in R v Brent London...
To continue reading
Request your trial