Cleland, R (On the Application Of) v Legal Aid Agency
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- ANTHONY ELLERAY QC
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Mr. Cleland sought judicial review for the assessment of his income and capital contributions for legal aid. Initially granted with contribution orders, the orders were challenged due to claimed financial changes in 2013. The Agency rejected reflecting changes in the 2011 Income Contribution Order and deemed the Capital Contribution calculation appropriate despite later expenditure on living costs. Judge Worster refused permission for appeal, emphasizing the need for timely reassessment requests under the relevant regulations. The renewed application for appeal was also dismissed.
J U D G M E N T (Approved)
THE DEPUTY JUDGE: The Applicant, Mr Cleland, seeks permission to apply for judicial review of assessments of his income and capital contributions for legal aid, having provided new information.
2. In 2011, Mr Cleland sought legal aid as he was facing prosecution for being part of a conspiracy to evade duty on cigarettes. He was granted legal aid with contribution orders. An Income Contribution Order was made on 8 June 2011 in respect of sums that would need to be contributed towards the legal aid. The ICO, or Income Contribution Order, was varied by letter dated 15 August 2011, a letter which referred to the procedure for seeking a review on the grounds of hardship. There does not appear to have been any application on that basis.
3. Mrs Cleland, who has spoken for her husband before me this afternoon, has referred me to her letters of 14 August and 7 October 2013, but as is submitted on behalf of the Agency, it cannot reasonably be argued that the Agency was obliged when considering its ICO in June 2011 to reflect changes in the circumstances notified in 2013.
4. A Capital Contribution Order was made on 28 December 2012, which was replaced by a further order because of a defect, on 23 January 2013. Mr Cleland through his wife in his submissions does not criticise that order insofar as it related to his alleged equity in his home.
5. The challenge that is sought to be raised is to £30,050.54 which was calculated to be savings available to Mr Cleland, taking into account monies available belonging to his wife which were not, under regulation, to be excluded from calculation.
6. As I understood Mrs Cleland to submit this afternoon, there had been money which, at the time of the original ICO, had been frozen pursuant to presumably an order obtained by the Revenue who was complaining about evasion of duty. It is right that in June 2012 she received £18,000 back from the Revenue in that regard, which she thereafter withdrew in cash from that account and applied for meeting various domestic bills and keeping the family together.
7. This is a renewed application for permission to appeal. Permission was refused on paper by His Honour Judge Worster on 6 November 2014.
8. At paragraph 2 of his reasons for refusing, he noted that the calculations of the Income and Capital Contribution Orders were made in accordance with the material regulations (on information supplied by Mr Cleland and his wife when he applied for legal aid)