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
It would be very difficult to challenge a director’s decision as to whether the interests of justice are met because it is a subjective test. If the test, as under Clause 9(3), is hard-edged—that is, whether there is a breach of the convention—it is much easier to bring a legal claim in that respect.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 734 c985
- 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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 15:31:49 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_803364
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_803364
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_803364