Criminal legal aid funding decisions

7 Mar 2025News

The new functionality allows providers to view criminal legal aid funding decisions in their LAA online portal

The Apply for Criminal Legal Aid service successfully replaced the eForms service in September 2024, becoming mandatory for all criminal legal aid applications in November 2024. A search function was introduced the same month, enabling providers to locate submitted and returned applications. Improvements will continue based on provider feedback.

New functionality release

A recently introduced outcome feature allows providers to view funding decisions directly in their LAA online portal. Representation orders, contribution notices, and refusal notices remain emailed to providers. Processed applications now appear under the new "Decided" tab, where users can review funding decisions and caseworker comments. Providers should always read these comments, as they may contain crucial information about the decision.

This update simplifies the process of tracking applications and understanding outcomes.

Looking forward

Future updates will continue to enhance Apply for Criminal Legal Aid, refining existing features and incorporating provider feedback to improve accessibility and usability.

Provider feedback

The development of Apply for Criminal Legal Aid has been shaped by provider feedback. Providers are encouraged to submit further feedback through the service’s feedback link.

Funding decision terminology

The language used in funding decisions differs slightly from eForms. Below are definitions for outcome screens:

Overall results

Granted: The application passed both Interests of Justice (IoJ) and means. A representation order will be emailed.
Granted - failed means: For Crown Court appeals, where IoJ passed but means did not. Clients may need to contribute towards their appeal.
Granted - with contribution: The application passed IoJ, but means test requires the client to pay towards their defence. A representation order and contribution notice will be emailed.
Refused - failed IoJ: The application did not meet IoJ requirements. A refusal notice will be emailed.
Refused - failed IoJ and means: The application failed both IoJ and means tests. A refusal notice will be emailed.
Refused - failed means: For magistrates’ court applications, where the means test was not passed. A refusal notice will be emailed.
Refused - ineligible: For Crown Court applications where disposable income exceeds the threshold. A refusal notice will be emailed.

IoJ results

Passed: The application meets IoJ requirements.
Failed: The application does not meet IoJ requirements.

Means test results

Passed: The application qualifies for legal aid.
Passed - with contribution: The client qualifies but must contribute towards legal fees.
Failed: The application exceeds the legal aid threshold.

Legal News desk contact: editorial@solicitorsjournal.com

Latest Articles

When pets become a family law issue

As pet ownership rises, family law struggles to reconcile animals’ sentience with their continued treatment as property

Shipping cartel settlement approved for consumers

The Competition Appeal Tribunal has finalised a £92.75 million settlement for affected vehicle purchasers

Consultation launched for housing offences

The Sentencing Council is inviting public input on new sentencing guidelines for housing offences

Abraaj Investment Management v Kes Power: Commercial estoppel and the assignment of receivables

High Court validates security assignment despite technical flaws through estoppel by convention principles.

Director of Public Prosecutions v Boureanu: Confiscation orders and the meaning of conviction

Romanian confiscation order enforced despite limitation preventing custodial sentence following corruption conviction.

Odusanya v Pennine Care Foundation Trust: witness evidence discussions and the right to representation

Strike-out appeal partially allowed where claimant denied consultation with representative during proceedings.

Smithstone v Tranmoor Primary School: Court of Appeal clarifies Part 36 costs in settled claims

90:10 liability offers viable but require actual determination to trigger enhanced costs

Network Rail Infrastructure Limited v Karl List: Advertising rights and railway hereditaments

Court of Appeal clarifies rating liability for advertising sites within operational railway stations under business rates legislation.

Cubic Transportation Systems v Transport for London: High Court lifts automatic suspension in £800m procurement challenge

TfL revenue collection contract dispute demonstrates adequacy of damages in major infrastructure procurement challenges.

Ioan Mailat v Hunedoara City Court: European arrest warrant particularisation requirements

High Court clarifies when missing offence details constitute wholesale failure in conviction warrants

High Court allows trial against Dyson

A High Court ruling sets the stage for a trial next year regarding claims against Dyson companies

Home Secretary gains power to dismiss chief constables

Under the new laws, Home Secretaries will gain statutory authority to force the retirement, resignation, or suspension of chief constables based on their performance

Hogan Lovells reveals bribery outlook 2026

Global law firm Hogan Lovells has launched its Bribery, Investigations & Enforcement Outlook report for 2026 focusing on emerging trends in compliance for multinational organizations

Limbu v Dyson: High Court orders liability trial for migrant workers' exploitation claims

Split trial approved over preliminary issues in Malaysian factory conditions case

Phullar v Ofsted: Employment tribunal failures in disability discrimination and unfair dismissal appeal

Dismissal for capability during cancer recovery raised procedural and reasonable adjustment failures throughout.

SJ Interview: Joelle Grogan

Dr Joelle Grogan is a legal scholar specialising in the rule of law in times of crisis. She presents The Law Show on BBC Radio 4, and is Co-Academic Director of the Rule of Law Clinic at the CEU Democracy Institute (Budapest), and a Senior Research Fellow at the UCD Sutherland School of Law. Her work focuses on constitutional accountability, emergency powers, and legal misinformation. In this interview, she examines the pressures facing the rule of law in the UK, from executive power and court delays to media narratives, emergencies, and the impact of AI on legal practice.

Justice reform risks targeting the wrong fix

As 2026 approaches, ministers eye jury trials while ignoring deeper causes of England’s criminal justice crisis