High Court refuses permission to appeal QASA ruling and makes maximum costs order


Davies: “We hope advocates will respect the court’s decision”

The High Court has today refused permission to appeal against the recent ruling on the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates (QASA).

The judicial review brought by four barristers against the scheme was comprehensively rejected last month, and the High Court said there was no reasonable prospect of them making a successful challenge to it.

Further, there was “no other compelling reason for granting permission to appeal”.

Though “professional concern” about the impact of QASA may have justified commencing proceedings, the court said, it “does not justify them being taken further”.

The claimants have been given until 7 February to renew their application for permission before the Court of Appeal. Despite last month’s ruling, large numbers of criminal law barristers have pledged to boycott the scheme.

The High Court also ordered them to pay £112,500 towards the costs incurred by the Legal Services Board (LSB) – against whom the judicial review was brought – and £37,500 towards the costs of the Bar Standards Board (BSB), which was an interested party.

Last October the High Court set a £150,000 cap on the costs that could be awarded in favour of the pair, with the other two interested parties – the Solicitors Regulation Authority and ILEX Professional Standards – having agreed not to seek costs.

The claimants, who were represented pro bono and financially supported by the Criminal Bar Association, had sought a costs cap of £15,000. The CBA is seeking donations from members to cover the costs order.

An LSB statement said: “We look forward to seeing QASA being implemented in the measured way set out by the Joint Advocacy Group, allowing for its continued development and evaluation in the light of practice experience and the helpful guidance offered by the High Court.”

BSB director Dr Vanessa Davies said: “We hope advocates will respect the court’s decision and understand that it is our duty to implement a quality assurance scheme. We hope we can now work together in implementing the scheme that it best meets the needs of those we are all striving to serve – the client and the public.”

Ian Watson, CEO of ILEX Professional Standards, said: “The courts have taken a clear position that QASA is proportionate, required, and decided in the right way. There were numerous consultations in the development of the scheme, the concerns of practitioners have been taken into account, and the scheme will ensure the continuing competence of criminal advocates.

“Whilst CILEx advocates have already been meeting QASA standards since IPS began authorising them, registration to the scheme is now required by 30 May 2014. As of 4 February, 110 advocates have registered out of the 397 regulated by IPS.”

Elements of QASA – including the dates for advocates to register for it – are being changed as a result of comments in the judicial review decision.




    Readers Comments

  • Finola Moss says:

    This is clearly a political decision, and shows that the separation of powers no longer appears to exist.

    Our totalitarian, undemocratic coalition government now have the power to reshape the law, and the legal profession, into whatever form it desires.

  • anon says:

    Sirs

    I am a consumer and a healthcare professional by trade . In my sphere the continual assessment of quality of any professional service is central to the public having confidence in that professional. The legal profession is quick to criticize others professions and subject them to scrutiny, but reluctant to admit their own house is not in order. For too long lawyers have got away with it. I have seen shockingly poor legal advice wrecking people s lives and lawyers walking away beyond accountability.

    The truth is their are rubbish lawyers. These practitioners need to be identified retrained and if that fails erased. This will reduce miscarriage s of justice and restore credibility in the system, which to be honest it lacks

    I urge lawyers other professions undergo this process and all professions should be treated the same. Any deviation from this principal will lead to accusations that lawyers are a club who look after their own. A club that is not transparent, open or honest.


Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Reports

No larger firm can ignore the demands of innovation – that was the clear message from our most recent roundtable: “The law firm of the future”, sponsored by LexisNexis Enterprise Solutions. It comes in many forms, predominantly but not just technology, and is not simply a case of automating process. Expertise and process are not mutually exclusive.

Blog

11 September 2018

Legal marketing lessons from Ed Sheeran

Anyone starting a new law firm or starting out on their legal career could take several lessons from Ed Sheeran’s approach to promoting himself.

Read More