Law centre wins right to day in court against council

Article published: Thursday, April 26th 2012

South Manchester Law Centre has won its right to a judicial review of Manchester City Council’s decision to end funding for specialist immigration advice described by the judge as “unique”.

It was standing room only in Manchester’s Civil Justice Centre as almost 100 supporters and users of the service crowded into the courtroom on Tuesday 24 April to hear the verdict given by the judge, Mr Justice Foskett, as to whether the law centre can challenge the council over the fairness and legality of its funding cut.

In the hearing the judge ruled that the centre, which lost cash when the council failed to renew its contract for providing high level immigration advice in October 2010, had an “arguable” case that the funding process “was not treated fairly”.

The law centre can now take its fight to the courts for judicial review at a later date.

In his judgement Mr Foskett noted the centre’s “high reputation” as a provider of legal advice in an area with an “overwhelming demand” for its services for people who were “plainly amongst the most vulnerable”. Although he admitted that he “had never seen anything like” the number of people listening intently to the ruling, he cautioned that legal verdicts were “not decided by the counting of heads”.

At a vigil held outside the court Sofia Kalu, a management member of Women Asylum Seekers Together, pointed out how past legal aid cuts had frequently left people queuing from 6am outside the city’s surviving advice centres with some still being turned away because “the caseload is too much”. A volunteer at the law centre, Sonia Wilson, also claimed there was “a dire need for it in the area”, saying “if this goes down, where are people going to go?”

“We’re still in the dark”

Over the course of the morning’s session the court heard how the law centre had first lost council funding in October 2010 following the expiration of its latest contract to deliver high level immigration advice. The judge noted how the centre had been encouraged to put together a business plan for a new bid when the first contract expired but had not been informed until October 2011, after pressure on the council from local councillors, that there was no money available.

Acting pro bono on behalf of the centre, barrister Mr George Brown said they had been “left in the dark as to when the decision was made to not continue a service which was provided for 35 years. We’re still in the dark.”

Opposing this view, the council said the law centre could have had no legitimate expectation that they were in a formal bidding process, with defence barrister Mr Hickman arguing “there was no right to an extension of the contract” and “no right to retender”. Mr Hickman explained that the council itself was hit by government funding cuts shortly after the centre’s contract expired, and that the “much deeper cuts than had been expected” left the local authority in no position to supply “additional expenditure” by singing a new contract.

While the judge made clear he was not ruling on who was right or wrong in the dispute itself, in granting permission for judicial review he said the core complaint that “the council did not consider lawfully or at all the bid” was capable of being argued. He also said more information about the key decision to not fund the centre at the heart of the case would have to be filed “with candour” when it came to judicial review. “The law centre is manned by responsible people” who would “no doubt” do that, he noted, and said the council “may wish” to do the same.

Speaking after the hearing law centre caseworker Sukhdeep Singh told MULE it was “sad” the centre “has to go to this extent for its service. Taking legal action takes away a lot of time and energy from the essential work the centre does.”

Nevertheless Singh said he was “pleased” at the decision, adding “it is worrying the council is trying to spend so much money on this when it could be far more sensible to spend the money on providing the services that the law centre provides.”

A Manchester City Council spokesperson said, “We will be able to comment further on this case after the judicial review has been heard in full.”

Richard Goulding

Tweet

More: Council, Cuts, Manchester, Migration and asylum, News

Comments

1. Labour Cllrs argued that ‘we have to follow the law by making cuts’ rings hollow when they fell foul of the Law by rushing ahead with cuts, without due regard for legal process.

   Comment by Mark Krantz on April 27, 2012 at 2:11 pm

2. The state exists to serve itself and those it employs.

   In hard times it needs to concentrate on this especially hard, which means peripheral expenses like the law centre can be dispensed with to protect the core state employees pay, pensions and generous terms and conditions.

   The state is not your friend.

   Comment by pete on April 27, 2012 at 10:52 pm

The comments are closed.