Part 1 of LASPO gave rise to three challenges. In December 2014, the Court of Appeal was robust in upholding the High Court’s ruling that guidance issued by Justice Secretary Chris Grayling on the application of the exceptional funding mechanism was unlawful.

The provisions, contained in section 10 of the Act, were touted by the government as the safety net under which legal aid would be granted where a refusal of funding would cause a breach of the applicant’s human rights.

Led by the Master of the Rolls, in cases brought by six immigrants subject to deportation, the court said the guidance was too restrictive and set the qualification threshold ‘too high’.

Indeed, MoJ statistics revealed that of the 1,151 applications made between 1 April 2013, when the scheme was introduced, and 31 December 2013, funding was granted in only 3 per cent.

One case wrapped up in the consolidated hearing, that of IS, has been separated and a further judicial review of the systemic issues related to exceptional funding will be heard later this month.

The challenge brought by Rights of Women (RoW), supported by the Law Society, to the domestic violence gateway rules was unsuccessful, however. It failed despite the fact that research shows that nearly 40 per cent of women affected by domestic violence could not meet the evidence requirements, and almost 60 per cent took no legal action as a direct result of not being eligible for legal aid.

The Court of Appeal granted leave, on appeal, for judicial review of the cuts to legal aid for prisoners. A date for the substantive hearing in two cases, brought by the Howard League for Penal Reform, and the Prisoners Advice Service, is awaited. The first, concerns the removal of legal aid for certain parole board hearings, and the second, the removal of criminal legal aid for sentence cases. The charities claim the cuts, imposed in December 2013, undermine prisoners’ rights and rehabilitation.

Two further challenges came out of the Transforming Legal Aid civil proposals. The first was over Grayling’s attempt to introduce, by secondary legislation, a provision excluding anyone who could not prove 12-months’ lawful UK residence.

In his final judgment before leaving the Bench, Lord Justice Moses slammed the proposal as ‘discriminatory’, ‘unlawful’ and impossible to justify, though his judgment does not mean the regulations are automatically invalid, and the government has appealed.

Judgment is awaited in the challenge, heard in December, to the lawfulness of regulations that came into force in April 2014 removing payment for the pre-permission costs of judicial review applications. The claimants – law firms Ben Hoare Bell, Deighton Peirce Glynn, Mackintosh Law and Public Law Solicitors, and housing charity Shelter – argued that the regulations effectively put judicial review out of the scope of legal aid and deny clients the ability to hold public bodies to account.

In September 2014, the High Court ruled that the consultation on proposals to introduce two-tier contracting arrangements was unlawful.

In the challenge, brought by the Criminal Law Solicitors Association and the London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association, Mr Justice Burnett ruled that the government’s failure to disclose two key reports on the impact of the proposal was ‘so unfair as to result in illegality’.

Despite this, and following a third consultation, a defiant Grayling indicated he would forge ahead, prompting the two representative groups, as well as the Law Society, to commence further challenges.

The cases were heard together on 15 and 16 January, and argued that the consultation was inadequate and the tender timetable unrealistic. The claimants won a victory before Christmas when Mr Justice Jay, of Leveson Inquiry fame, granted interim relief, and ordered the government to suspend the tender round pending the full hearing.

Judicial review has been a successful tool to prevent, or at least delay, some of the government’s worst excesses. Shadow justice minister, Andy Slaughter, suggested even those that pass the permission stage, or are ‘technical wins’, have a ‘cumulative effect in exposing a culture of bad decision-making and poor management’ at the MoJ.

Grayling could yet face further defeats, prompting policy u-turns months ahead of a general election. Little wonder he wants to limit judicial review.