Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Pannick (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 24 January 2012. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.


Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

My Lords, perhaps I may add a few words on Amendment 91. The defect in Clause 9(3) is that it defines the ““exceptional case determination”” exclusively by reference to breaches of convention rights and EU law rights. But those rights are designed as a floor and not a ceiling. It is most unfortunate that the Bill treats them as a ceiling. I hope that the Government, on reflection, agree that the interests of justice are criteria entirely appropriate for the responsible director to consider and to apply. The wording of Clause 9(3) is very regrettable. If this amendment is not accepted, the consequence is that the director is compelled to deny legal aid even if he considers that the interests of justice require it in the circumstances of the case.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
734 c983 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disability Disclosure of information Compensation Criminal proceedings Appeals Assets Advocacy Criminal injuries compensation Legal profession Employment Finance Fees and charges Legal aid scheme Eligibility Injuries Discrimination Evictions Local government NHS Negligence Social security Sentencing Tribunals Sexual offences Telephone services Travellers Remand in custody Police stations Citizens' advice bureaux Law centres
Legislation
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk