HL Deb 25 June 1999 vol 602 c112WA
Lord Williams of Elvel

asked Her Majesty's Government:

On what grounds the Legal Aid Board's decision to grant legal aid to the noble Lord, Lord Spens, for his action against the Bank of England was revoked; and why the decision was made so late. [HL3154]

The Lord Chancellor

The noble Lord, Lord Spens, had a limited certificate that did not include trial. The board declined to extend it and moved to discharge it because, on the standard legal aid merits test, it was no longer reasonable in the circumstances for public funds to support the noble Lord, Lord Spens, in his action against the Bank of England. The confidentiality provisions of Section 38 of the Legal Aid Act prevent me from discussing the details further. However, I am satisfied that the board acted properly. It has a duty to keep merits under review throughout the life of a case and must discharge a certificate where the merits of a case no longer justify public funding, even if it is on the eve of a trial. The noble Lord, Lord Spens, was given an early opportunity to appeal against the board's decision but decided not to.

At a technical level it is important to note that the noble Lord's legal aid certificate was discharged, not revoked. Therefore he is not liable for the costs the board had incurred on his case up to the date of discharge. Had his certificate been revoked, he would have been.