People bringing challenges against the government were refused legal aid after an "independent" body briefed the government about their cases

High-profile legal challenges against the government were denied legal aid funding after supposedly independent decision makers told government staff about the potentially embarrassing cases being brought against their bosses.

Applications for publicly funded legal advice are considered by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA), which is part of the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) but is supposed to act independently without political interference. But internal emails seen by Buzzfeed News show that in at least three cases, LAA staff informed officials working in ministers’ private offices about cases being brought against their government departments. The people bringing those cases then had their applications for legal aid turned down.  

The emails date from 2014, when Chris Grayling was the justice secretary overseeing a series of botched reforms and cuts (he is now secretary of state for transport). The first email conversation concerns a judicial review application by Barbara Gordon-James against Grayling’s decision to ban prisoners from receiving books to read. Gordon-James’ application for legal aid was refused after Grayling's office called the LAA.

In an email, an assistant to the LAA’s chief executive wrote: “had a call from SoS [secretary of state’s] office — I’m looking for some urgent advice on whether Barbara Gordon-Jones is receiving any legal aid for a JR [judicial review] she is bringing against the SoS re prison books.”

The possibility of Gordon-Jones winning her case clearly had the potential to cause political embarrassment for Grayling, so it is concerning that a request for legal aid was denied after a call from his office to the supposedly independent decision maker. Grayling's blushes were not spared in the end though, as the lawyer lodging the legal aid application went on to fight the case pro bono and succeeded in having the draconian law overturned in the High Court.

The second of the three cases was a challenge to the government’s controversial contract with the Saudi prison service. The challenge was granted legal aid at first but the LAA changed its mind after government ministers received a letter before claim. The lawyer bringing the case said that the U-turn was outside the rules and “indicative of political interference behind the scenes”.

The third case involved the refusal of legal aid for the families whose relatives died in the Birmingham pub bombings when they tried to challenge a ruling that Irish Republican Army members suspected to be behind the attacks would not be named during fresh inquests. The case involved the Home Office, Ministry of Defence, Foreign Office and the police, but the families were told they could not receive exceptional case funding because the case did not meet the merits test, even though a High Court judge had ruled it did in fact have merit.

The LAA does not have its own media team and all its press enquiries are overseen by the MoJ. It is also the LAA’s policy to share details of all high-profile cases with the MoJ press office and other staff, which means that government spin doctors and sometimes ministers are informed about legal aid applications before a decision is made – a situation that casts doubt on whether the LAA is truly independent.

The potential for powerful members of the government to prevent their decisions from being challenged has caused concern among legal aid lawyers. Carol Storer, director of the Legal Aid Practitioners Group (LAPG) said: “A number of practitioners have contacted LAPG to express concerns that there is a real risk of political interference in some legal aid decisions where the government has an interest. The cases often raise issues of great importance, legally and constitutionally. The high profile policy creates the risk of political interference with decisions about which legal challenges may or may not be brought, which should be completely independent of government.”

Responding to the story, a government spokesperson said: “We reject entirely the suggestion of political interference in the legal aid process. In fact, this government made changes under LASPO [the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012] to ensure the director of legal aid casework is fully independent in their decision making. It is usual practice for information to be shared between an executive agency and the responsible government department in certain circumstances. This would not extend to confidential details of an application. As part of their inbuilt assurance processes, the LAA can review all legal aid decisions and change these if the application does not meet the relevant merits criteria.”