Leveson rejects QASA appeal as arguments 'simply not made out'

Barristers hoping to press ahead with a judicial review of the Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates (QASA) received a further blow when the High Court rejected their demand for an appeal.

Dismissing the judicial review, Sir Brian Leveson, president of the Queen's Bench Division ruled last month that QASA was "justified by the evidence of sub-standard advocacy".

Giving his reasons for this week's order rejecting the appeal, Sir Brian said that "the arguments advanced by the claimants were simply not made out".

He said the Legal Services Board, and the other regulators, were "entitled to conclude both that concerns about advocacy standards required regulatory action and that the scheme proposed was within its powers, not flawed by illegality or irregularity and was proportionate".

Sir Brian said he considered that there was "no reasonable prospect of successfully challenging these conclusions and no other compelling reason for granting permission".

He said professional concern about the impact of QASA "may have justified commencing these proceedings but does not, in our view, justify them being taken further."

The claimant barristers have been ordered to pay £112,500 towards the costs incurred by the Legal Services Board and £37,500 towards the costs of the Bar Standards Board.

They can now appeal directly to the Court of Appeal, but were given a reduced deadline of Friday this week to do so.

Dr Vanessa Davies (pictured), director of the BSB, called on advocates to respect the decision of the court.

"We hope advocates will respect the court's decision and understand that it is our duty to implement a quality assurance scheme. We hope we can now work together in implementing the scheme so that it best meets the needs of those we are all striving to serve - the client and the public."

A spokesman for the LSB said: "We look forward to seeing QASA being implemented in the measured way set out by the Joint Advocacy Group, allowing for its continued development and evaluation in the light of practical experience and the helpful guidance offered by the High Court."

Ian Watson, chief executive of ILEX Professional Standards, said the courts had taken a clear position that the scheme was "proportionate, required, and decided in the right way".

Watson added: "There were numerous consultations in the development of the scheme, the concerns of practitioners have been taken into account, and the scheme will ensure the continuing competence of criminal advocates."