§ Mr. Nigel JonesTo ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many people were refused legal aid in cases of non-payment of community charge. [97721]
§ Mr. LockSince 1 January 1999, the Legal Aid Board has refused 47 applications for Assistance By Way Of Representation (ABWOR) in respect of fine defaulters on the basis that they failed to meet the legal merits test. A total of 126 applications have been granted during the same period. It is not possible to break down how many of these refusals related to community charge (Council tax) cases as the information is not recorded at that level of detail.
Under the Legal Aid Act 1988, civil legal aid is not available for representation in the magistrates court for non-payment of community charge (now Council tax since 1993). Where a debtor appears before a magistrates court for failing to pay Council tax or to obey an order of the court and is at risk of imprisonment, legal representation may be provided by the court duty solicitor under paragraph 50(2)(b) of the Legal Aid Board's Duty Solicitor Arrangements 1997.
In complex cases, where advance preparation may be required, a solicitor may apply for an adjournment in order to apply to the Legal Aid Board for ABWOR under Regulation 7(4) Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) (Amendment) Regulations 1997.
§ Mr. Nigel JonesTo ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the implications of the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Mr. Kevin Perks and seven other community charge protesters that their rights had been violated by refusal to grant them legal aid. [97719]
§ Jane KennedyThe decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Perks and Othersv. The United Kingdom is consistent with the leading case of 628W Benham v. UK. Since that case, and since the events which gave rise to the application made by Mr. Kevin Perks and others, the law has been changed so that legal aid is now available as required by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government have noted that none of the eight applicants succeeded in their claim that Article 5 of the Convention had been breached and that only one of the applicants was awarded damages for the breach of Article 6. The Government considers that the judgment of the Court of Human Rights provides useful confirmation and clarification in relation to these issues.
§ Mr. Nigel JonesTo ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor' s Department if it is the Government's intention to appeal against the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Mr. Kevin Perks and seven other community charge protesters. [97720]
§ Jane KennedyIt is not possible to appeal against the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in this case.