The King (on the application of Joyce Oji) vs The Director of Legal Aid Casework

This case concerned a judicial review of the Director of Legal Aid Casework's refusal to grant exceptional case funding to Joyce Oji, a victim of the Windrush scandal, for her application to the Windrush Compensation Scheme.

TLDR:

• Joyce Oji, a Windrush victim, applied for legal aid to help with her compensation claim.
• The Director of Legal Aid Casework refused the application.
• Oji sought judicial review of this refusal, arguing it breached her rights under Art.6 and Art.8 of the ECHR.
• The High Court reviewed the case and dismissed the claim.

The claimant, Joyce Oji, was born in Nigeria and moved to the UK in 1988. Despite being granted indefinite leave to remain in 2007 and later becoming a British citizen, she faced numerous difficulties due to her inability to prove her immigration status. These included issues with employment, housing, and travel.

In 2019, Oji applied to the Windrush Compensation Scheme (WCS) to seek redress for these issues. Finding the application process complex and the assistance provided inadequate, she sought legal aid through exceptional case funding (ECF) to help with her claim. Her application for ECF was refused by the Director of Legal Aid Casework in September 2022, a decision confirmed upon internal review in October 2022.

Oji, with the voluntary assistance of her legal team, submitted her WCS application in December 2022, seeking compensation of over £127,000. The application was extensive, requiring significant preparation, but was ultimately refused.

Oji then sought judicial review of the refusal to grant ECF, arguing that the Director had wrongly concluded that the compensation process did not engage her rights under Art.6 (right to a fair trial) or Art.8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). She also argued that the Director failed to consider whether ECF should have been granted under the circumstances of her case.

The High Court examined the WCS, noting its purpose to compensate the Windrush generation for losses due to their inability to prove their lawful immigration status. The scheme is not statutory and requires applicants to provide substantial evidence to support their claims.

The court found that the Director's decision to refuse ECF was lawful. It concluded that the WCS did not engage Oji's rights under Art.6 or Art.8 of the ECHR. The court emphasized that the scheme's rules and guidance did not necessitate legal advice at the initial claims stage, and the assistance provided by the state, although limited, was deemed sufficient.

The court also noted that the WCS is a voluntary scheme with no statutory basis, designed to provide one-off compensation for specific historical wrongs. As such, it did not create a civil right that would engage Art.6. Furthermore, the court found that the refusal of compensation did not have a sufficiently significant impact on Oji's private and family life to engage Art.8.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed Oji's claim, upholding the Director's decision to refuse ECF. The case highlights the complexities faced by vulnerable individuals in accessing justice and the limitations of the current legal aid framework.

Legal representatives: Chris Buttler KC, Grace Brown, and Alex Schymyck (instructed by Southwark Law Centre) for the Claimant, Malcolm Birdling and Aarushi Sahore (instructed by Government Legal Department) for the Defendant.

Judicial Panel: His Honour Judge Bird sitting as a Judge of the High Court

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWHC 1281 (Admin)