PRISONERS will be able to challenge cuts to legal aid after the policy was judged “inherently unfair” by the Court of Appeal yesterday.
Two charities acting on behalf of vulnerable inmates won permission to apply for a judicial review of the cuts.
A High Court decision to block the case, brought by the Howard League for Penal Reform and the Prisoners’ Advice Service (PAS), was overturned by judges Lord Justice Leveson, Lord Justice Tomlinson and Lady Justice Sharp.
PAS managing solicitor Deborah Russo said: “The legal aid cuts to prison law have resulted in prisoners’ access to justice being severely curtailed, with the consequence of further isolating an already very marginalised sector of our society.”
The Court of Appeal judgment, she added, “now allows for a full hearing of the case — for legal aid for the most deprived and disadvantaged of prisoners.”
The Howard League argued that, in the year following the cutbacks, use of its advice line rose by 45 per cent with the extra calls coming mostly from young people in prison.
At the hearing, Lord Justice Leveson said: “I am prepared to accept that there could be a significant number of individuals subject to these types of decisions for whom it may be very difficult to participate effectively without support from someone.
“It is arguable, therefore, that, without the potential for access to appropriate assistance, the system could carry an unacceptable risk of unfair, and therefore unlawful, decision-making.”
Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers secretary and barrister Sam Parham told the Star that he felt vindicated by the decision.
“Yet again, the government is being forced to answer questions about its attempts to deny legal aid to those who need it the most,” he said.
“There will now be a full hearing considering the extent to which vulnerable prisoners will have access to justice in the future — without legal aid, those without financial resources have none.”
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: “Legal aid is taxpayers’ money and should be used where really necessary, not for issues from prisoners that can be fairly dealt with by other means. We will continue to argue this point in court.”

