This is the first regular PLP column. For those of you who don’t know us, the Public Law Project, or PLP, is a national access to justice charity, concerned with access to public law remedies (tribunals, complaints procedures and judicial review (JR)) for disadvantaged groups. We work through a combination of research, training, policy initiatives and casework, including public interest litigation.

The intention of this column is to share information. We want to improve dialogue with others working on similar or related issues, and build on our common understanding. We have a new, shiny website, and will shortly be launching a new, shiny blog. And we are currently recruiting to the new, quite possibly shiny, post of communications director.

These are interesting times, and our strategic priorities are intended to reflect the enormity of the challenges ahead: to promote and preserve the rule of law; to ensure fair systems; and to improve access to justice.

We recognise that these are big themes, and so, to get to the detail, we are focusing our efforts on five interrelated areas:

We are exploring how best to consolidate and develop our networks with the advice sector and with wider civil society and working on various partnership initiatives aimed at expanding access to JR. JR is accessible in principle more often than it is in practice: we want to change that. We are particularly interested in supporting initiatives in the context of in our substantive focus areas, and in the South-West and Wales. Please do get in touch if we could work together.

This focus was selected in light of evidence of systemic unfairness in benefits decision-making. Large numbers are affected – consequences include hardship and even homelessness – while the removal of welfare benefits from the scope of legal aid has decimated access to justice in this sector.

One consequence of Brexit will be an unprecedented transfer of power from the legislature (parliament) to the executive (ministers). This has potentially profound consequences for the rule of law. We have developed a dynamic new research project, which, with typical love for a good acronym, we call SIFT (Statutory Instruments: Filtering and Tracking).

Of course, legal aid is a key means by which the state meets its obligations to facilitate access to justice. Post-LASPO, PLP set up an initiative intended to mitigate its impact on the vulnerable. We have brought or acted in a series of test cases that have improved the administration and scope of the scheme, and have published training and guidance.

Of particular interest to us at the moment are the Civil Legal Aid (Financial Resources and Payment for Services) Regulations 2013 SI No 480. We have been working with the Law Society to explore the extent to which the current eligibility rules may hinder or prevent access to the court. Do please send us case studies of people who are ineligible for legal aid but can’t practically afford legal advice.

We are very aware that this piece is peppered with requests for information and potential for partnership. Collaborative working is key to PLP’s approach, and we are keen to share what we are learning and to learn from others – please do get in touch!