QASA judicial review launched in High Court

The Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates (QASA) is unlawful and intended to undermine the fundamental principles of barristers' independence, the High Court has heard as the judicial review of QASA gets underway.

QASA involves the mandatory assessment of all publicly funded criminal advocates; a scheme that was approved by the Legal Services Board (LSB) following a joint application from the Bar Council and Bar Standards Board. The case, brought in the name of four barristers (David Howker QC, Christopher Hewertson, Katherine Lumsdon and Rufus Taylor) and supported by the Criminal Bar Association, challenges the LSB's decision. As reported by the Law Society Gazette, the claimants argue that the judicial assessment of advocates during live criminal trials constitutes a "clear and irreconcilable conflict of interest" for all advocates that threatens their independence and the interests of the public.

The claimants also question QASA's effect on judicial independence and the rule of law by giving judges a dual role of both judging cases and assessing the advocates involved. In addition, the claimants believe that QASA does not comply with the Provision of Services Regulations 2009 and breaches Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and EU law by providing inadequate appeal rights.

The case is being heard by Sir Brian Leveson, Mr Justice Bean and Mr Justice Cranston, with judgment expected in December.