England and Wales High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) Decisions

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) Decisions >> Alliss v Legal Services Commission [2002] EWHC 9032 (Costs) (25 September 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Costs/2002/9032.html
Cite as: [2002] EWHC 9032 (Costs)

---

[New search] [Help]

---

This summary of a judgment has been obtained from the Supreme Court Costs Office pages on the HM Courts Service web site. The citation used by BAILII is not an officially approved citation. The full text of the judgment may have an official Neutral Citation issued by the court, and may be available elsewhere on BAILII.

 

 

 No.19 of 2002

Alliss v Legal Services Commission
25 September 2002
Mr Justice Jackson

The Alliss and Maule families were neighbours. A neighbour dispute concerning a driveway and access over it developed. Mr Terrance Maule erected a fence on the disputed land and Mr Anthony Alliss, the Claimant's father, dismantled that fence. This happened several times until a confrontation took place in which the Claimant was also involved, as was Craig Maule the son of Terrance. In the course of that confrontation Anthony Alliss was shot and killed. As a result Terrance and Craig Maule were charged with murder on the basis of a joint enterprise. The Defendants case was that Anthony Alliss attacked Terrance Maule and Craig Maule was acting to defend his father when he shot Anthony Alliss, and that the subsequent shot which struck the Claimant was an accident. The trial Judge at the murder trial acceded to a submission of no case to answer on the murder counts, and the prosecution offered no further evidence on the other counts.

Subsequently the Claimant brought civil proceedings under cover of a legal aid certificate against both Terrance Maule and his son Craig. The latter alone had legal aid cover. The medical evidence was that the Claimant had suffered psychological damage as a result of the incident and not just physical injury from the "stray" bullet, but as the trial approached, legal aid was withdrawn from the Claimant on the basis that there was not a good prospect of success and that there was no certainty that the Defendants could meet the damages if they lost, but on appeal legal aid was restored.

However eight weeks before the trial it was again withdrawn, and not restored despite a favourable opinion citing 60% success as a likely outcome from Leading Counsel for the Claimant. The Legal Services Commission took advice from an independent Leading Counsel which was not favourable to the Claimant, and accordingly discharged the certificate which was not restored on further appeal.

In the subsequent judicial review proceedings the Judge held that whilst the conduct of the Legal Services Commission did not betray any procedural irregularities, nevertheless they had acted contrary to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Judge pointed out that the trial due to take place a bare week after his judgment would involve a no longer legally aided claimant, who had difficult problems on the issues of causation and quantum, facing a legally aided defendant with Leading and Junior Counsel funded by the Legal Services Commission, some of the benefit of which work would no doubt be reaped by his father, even though the latter was not legally aided. The Judge said in paragraph 44 of his judgment:

"I do not believe it is realistic to suggest that this claimant, even aided by a MacKenzie Friend, and even with the benefit of her bundles and so forth having been prepared, would be able to conduct the proposed trial. I have reached this conclusion by applying the principles which the European Court of Human Rights stated in Airey v Ireland and PC & S v United Kingdom as quoted above."

The result of the successful application is not clear from the judgment because the Review Committee had less than a week in which to reconsider their decision to dismiss the appeal.