Legal Advice at the Royal Courts of Justice

Demand for legal advice from litigants in person, and potential litigants, continues to grow at both our offices, and our dedicated team of paid solicitors and Honorary Legal Advisers continues to deliver excellent advice to our diverse client groups on a range of cases.

Our partner law firms have not only provided the services of Honorary Legal Advisers, who have advised a record 2,276 clients over the year, but have also provided access to the free services of pro bono costs draftsman and bundling for cases in the Court of Appeal .

Thanks to funding from the Legal Services Commission, our three Duty Solicitors at the Royal Courts of Justice office provide a firm foundation for the delivery of our legal advice services, often dealing with complex and urgent cases including threats of deportation, eviction or loss of liberty. The support provided by the Receptionist, Supervisor and Senior Administrator are key to the effective delivery of this service, with all who are involved ensuring clients receive a professional experience at what is often a difficult and distressing time in their lives.

We have produced a range of leaflets to help you through this process. These include:

Case Study

The Client was seeking asylum on the basis of persecution for her political beliefs. She had her claim rejected by the Home Office, the Adjudicator and the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. The client then applied for permission to judicially review the decision. This application was also rejected based on the Adjudicator’s analysis of her credibility.

The Adjudicator made an adverse finding on credibility because of a discrepancy in her statement regarding the number of children she had. The Adjudicator afforded the client, who spoke French, no opportunity to comment on the discrepancy and dismissed her “entire story as a lie” because of this discrepancy.

The client appealed the refusal of the application for judicial review to the Court of Appeal, and the Bureau assisted her in lodging her appeal as public funding is not usually provided for immigration cases. Lord Justice Carnworth granted her permission to appeal stating that: “Credibility, turning on something as fundamental as whether she had children or not, was an issue that needed to be sorted out with a barrister whom she had not been able to see for more than a very short time, particularly given the language problem.” Lord Justice Carnworth dismissed the Adjudicator’s comments as “inexplicable” and concluded that there had been an arguable error of law.

The Bureau assisted the client in obtaining representation via the Bar Pro Bono Unit for the full appeal hearing and negotiated on behalf of the client with the Home Office Solicitor. The bundling service prepared the appeal bundles. The Home Office conceded that there had been an error of law and agreed to quash the decision by consent prior to the full appeal hearing.

This is an example of a client who had slipped through the net in terms of legal representation. It is these types of cases in which the Bureau can effectively ‘plug the gap’ left by the absence of legal funding, which makes our work so crucial.