Although there was no statutory obligation upon the area committee to give reasons, it was right that the appeal structure in a case such as the present made it clear that reasons should be given, leaving aside any general principles of fairness.There were two stages in the appeal process which made the giving of reasons necessary. The board had subsequently re-determined the applicant’s claims at nil, and she had appealed to the area committee, which had not been satisfied that she had entrusted the work to competent and responsible representatives employed in her office, nor that those persons had been under appropriate supervision. The applicant had asked for more detailed reasons for that decision, but none had been given.The applicant had then appealed to the Costs Appeal Committee, which had upheld the area committee’s decision, holding that the words “employed in his office” in regulation 20 referred to those persons employed by the solicitor under the normal principles of employment, including payment of PAYE; that self-employed persons carrying out some work within a solicitor’s office, or outside the office, must be under the solicitor’s immediate supervision; and that costs claimed for work undertaken in breach of regulation 20 would be disallowed. Where an appeal against such a refusal was dismissed by the board’s area committee, the committee should give its reasons.
The court dismissed an application for judicial review of decisions of the Legal Aid Board arising out of claims made by the applicant firm of solicitors under the green form scheme.The board became concerned about the claims being made by the applicant under the green form scheme, noting that one person, under the reference AF, appeared to have been working for more than 24 hours a day, and that the claims appeared to be almost pro forma.The firm’s sole principal stated that the work had been carried out by a Mr Farah, and that the hours claimed did not reflect the work carried out by him, but by a number of clerks or associates employed by him on an ad hoc basis, and paid by him from his own earnings. His arrangement with the applicant was that he worked as a self employed consultant and was paid a commission of 35 per cent of the fee income received by the applicant.Rabinder Singh (Irwin Mitchell) for the applicant; Charles Utley (Legal Aid Board) for the respondent.Mr Justice Latham said that the board had taken the view that the level of supervision of Mr Farah did not meet the requirements of regulation 20 of the Legal Advice and Assistance Regulations 1989, which provided that:nothing in these regulations shall prevent a solicitor from entrusting any function under these regulations to a partner of his or to a competent and responsible representative of his who is employed in his office or is otherwise under his immediate supervision.A block on payments out of the legal aid fund had been placed on the applicant’s account.

He strongly favoured their being permitted to do so, stressing that it was best for balancing rights and the public interest to be done at the national level. I know that he was personally delighted that this will happen soon in the UK when the Human Rights Bill is enacted.Rolv Einar Ryssdal, judge: born Bergen, Norway 27 October 1914; Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Norway 1969-84; Judge, European Court of Human Rights 1973-98, Vice-President 1981-85, President 1985-98; married 1954 Signe Stray (two sons, one daughter); died Oslo 18 February 1998.. Regina v Legal Aid Board, ex parte Rafina; Queen’s Bench Division, Crown Office List (Mr Justice Latham) 12 February 1998

THE LEGAL Aid Board was entitled to refuse to meet claims made by a solicitor under the green form scheme in respect of work undertaken by a self-employed consultant where that work had been inadequately supervised. He frequently stressed the importance of domestic judges’ being able to give effect to fundamental rights themselves.At a public lecture in London 18 months ago, Ryssdal answered criticism of some in Britain that the European Court of Human Rights had overstepped its remit or misjudged the correct balance between public interest and protection of the individual.

He stressed that many of the cases which came to Strasbourg from the United Kingdom only did so because our judges could not apply the convention directly. Ryssdal pressed for all the standards in the convention and its protocols to be accepted, including Protocol No 6 on the abolition of the death penalty. By his death some 733 judgments had been delivered, some 632 when he was President.At a ceremony to honour his memory last week, Rudolf Bernhardt, Vice- President of the court, did not exaggerate in describing Rolv Ryssdal’s position as unique in the history of any international court and in stating, “Rarely can one man have played such a prominent role in a system of justice, be it international or national.”A number of features stand out from Ryssdal’s presidency. He had a fine legal mind, of course, but above all he displayed the balance and good sense which mark out the best judges. His period as President coincided with new states becoming party to the Convention on Human Rights; some of these had grave human-rights problems. On such cases, the court has been firm in upholding the international standards which the convention was created to provide.Ryssdal played a pivotal role in promoting institutional reform, which comes to fruition this November with the establishment of the full-time court. In 1969, he became Chief Justice of Norway’s Supreme Court, a post he held for some 15 years.

In 1973, he first became a Judge of the European Court of Human Rights. At that time the court had few cases, averaging around one a year; just 17 rulings had been delivered when he joined the court. In 1979, his fellow judges elected him Vice-President of the court and in 1985 he was elected its President.The volume of cases before the court increased massively during the 25 years Ryssdal served as Judge and particularly during his presidency. A judge by day, by night he played an active role in the Norwegian resistance to Nazi occupation, which led to his being detained from December 1943 until his country was liberated.