GKR Law Solicitors, R (on the application of) v Liverpool Magistrates Court

A court deciding whether to grant publicly funded legal representation must address the statutory interests-of-justice criteria on the facts. Where an unrepresented defendant intends to call a young child as a witness, and the child may require special measures, the need for professional assistance can make representation clearly necessary. The court must explain how relevant factors, including the availability of special measures, affect the decision. It should not prejudge the merits or evidential value of the proposed defence before deciding whether representation is required.

GKR Law Solicitors sought judicial review of Liverpool Magistrates’ refusal to grant Joan Southern legal representation for a special reasons hearing concerning the endorsement of her driving licence. She intended to call her 12-year-old son as a witness to events said to explain the speeding offence. The application relied on the need for professional assistance in arranging and presenting evidence, including possible special measures for the child.

The central issue was whether the magistrates had lawfully exercised their discretion under Schedule 3 to the Access to Justice Act 1999.

1. Claim allowed. The refusal by Liverpool Magistrates to grant Miss Southern a right of representation was quashed.
2. Under Schedule 3 paragraph 5(2) of the Access to Justice Act 1999, the interests of justice had to be assessed by reference to the listed statutory factors. Paragraph 5(2)(d), concerning witnesses, was engaged because Miss Southern intended to call her young son as a witness of fact.
3. Representation was clearly required. The child was young, special measures were required to assist him in giving evidence, and Miss Southern lacked the skills and resources to arrange those measures herself.
4. The magistrates’ reasons were inadequate. They did not explain how their consideration of the child’s eligibility for special measures supported refusal of representation. Their reasoning also showed a degree of prejudging the explanation for the offence and the value of the evidence.
5. The alternative arguments concerning a substantial question of law and risk to reputation or livelihood did not need to be decided. The claim succeeded under paragraph 5(2)(d).
6. No direction to reconsider the application was necessary because the special reasons hearing had since taken place. Reasonable costs were ordered from central funds.