Lindsey Briggs, wife of injured police officer Paul Briggs, “hugely disappointed” with ruling

Following a Court of Appeal decision which will limit access to legal aid, specialist public lawyers involved in the case have expressed their disappointment and warned that the move could make it “impossible” for families to gain legal representation.

The Court of Protection last year agreed that life sustaining medical treatment could be withdrawn from British army veteran and police officer Paul Briggs, who had been in a minimally conscious state for nearly 18 months following a motorcycle crash in July 2015.

Although his wife Lindsey did not qualify for means tested legal aid and could not afford representation, she was able to bring the case after Irwin Mitchell’s specialist Public Law team asked the court to treat the case as one involving deprivation of liberty safeguards. Such cases often relate to restrictive care arrangements and legal aid is available regardless of a person’s means.

The judge agreed to treat Paul’s case in such a manner, but following his death in January 2017 the Legal Aid Agency and the Ministry of Justice appealed the decision.  The Court of Appeal has now upheld their appeal and while the Legal Aid Agency has said it will honour the funding in Lindsey’s case, the decision will mean others in a similar situation will not be able to access legal aid unless they pass the existing means test.

Mathieu Culverhouse, the specialist public lawyer at Irwin Mitchell who acted for Lindsey Briggs, said: 

Expert Opinion

“Our client was reliant on legal aid in order to ensure that her husband’s wishes were respected, but today’s ruling means that many other families in a similar position will not be able to get access to that same level of support.

“We see numerous cases in which people earn too much to qualify for legal aid under the government’s means test for legal aid, but are also not wealthy enough to pay for representation themselves.

“Those who fall into this ‘squeezed middle’ are now likely to find it impossible to secure access to justice unless they are able to find a lawyer who is willing to work for free in what are inevitably lengthy and complicated legal proceedings.

“I am very concerned that the effect of this decision will be to restrict access to justice for families involved in these most difficult of cases, where the rulings made are literally a matter of life and death. I would urge the government to take urgent steps to reform the legal aid system to ensure a fair system in which families are able to argue their cases on a level playing field.” Mathieu Culverhouse - Partner

Lindsey said: “I am hugely disappointed about this decision and how it will impact other people and their families. I was grateful that legal aid was granted to hear Paul's case fairly and transparently in court. Otherwise, I would not have been able to afford the tens of thousands of pounds needed fund legal representation. Hard working families should not have to face financial hardship to have their relatives’ views fairly considered, and nor should legal professionals be expected to work for free.

“I continue to stress how important it is for those who have strong views about refusing medical intervention when they aren't in a position to speak for themselves to write an Advance Decision, which should prevent the need for court proceedings altogether.”