Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Using legal challenges, Kirstie Douse

1,295 views

Published on

Using legal challenges, Kirstie Douse

Published in: Health & Medicine
  • Be the first to comment

Using legal challenges, Kirstie Douse

  1. 1. NALOXONE – USING LEGAL CHALLENGES Kirstie Douse Head of Legal Services 0207 324 2982 kirstie@release.org.uk
  2. 2. POSSIBLE LEGAL CHALLENGES  2 main routes of challenge and options within  Judicial Review  Decision to delay Regulations until 01/10/15 is irrational  Human Rights claim  Right to life  ALL options have potential difficulties
  3. 3. JUDICIAL REVIEW  Decision to not introduce Regulations before 01/10/15 is irrational  In light of all of the evidence, and experiences in other countries  Permission needed  Initial problem  Time limit is 3 months from decision  When was decision made/notified?  Letter from DoH to ACMD date stamped 15th July 2014 (out of time)  Can make an out of time application if very good reason for the delay
  4. 4. JUDICIAL REVIEW 2  Applicant  Any interested party  Individual  Group/Organisation  Ideally someone with low income/ in receipt of welfare benefits (for funding purposes)  Others can ‘intervene’  Funding options  Legal Aid  Means test  Merits test  Public interest  Significant wider public interest (public at large)  Prospects of success (need advice)
  5. 5. JUDICIAL REVIEW 3  Funding options cont.  Alternatives  Conditional Fee Agreements (CFAs)  Basic principle = Claimant not liable for own costs if they lose, and Defendant ordered to pay if they win  Doesn’t deal with Defendant's costs if the claim fails  Protective Cost Order (PCO) • Protection from risk of paying other side’s costs if lose • Public importance • Public interest • NO costs implication or capped at a certain level  Privately funded  Naloxone Co??
  6. 6. JUDICIAL REVIEW 4  Potential to get a new decision and review that?  Letter to MHRA/DoH requesting wider provision of Naloxone  Likely refusal!  JR that decision  Court may determine original decision is the relevant one  Judgements  Quashing order  Mandatory order
  7. 7. HUMAN RIGHTS CLAIM  Prior to any negative event  Decision to delay Regulations until 01/10/15 interferes with Right to life  Applicant  Individual potentially affected by availability of Naloxone  ‘Perfect’ claimant  High risk of overdose  No naloxone provision at hostel/drug service  Time limit 1 year  Funding and costs issues as for JR
  8. 8. HUMAN RIGHTS CLAIM 2  After a negative event; overdose/death  Decision to delay Regulations until 01/10/15 interfered with Right to life and Right to family life  Potential for personal injury claim too (3 year time limit)  Applicant  Family member of individual from last scenario  Funding and costs issues as JR  Statement from coroner?  Links with INQUEST to find Claimant?
  9. 9. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS  Legal aid likely to be problematic to get  Need to consider alternative funding, especially for costs  Need advice from specialist solicitors about prospects of success and which route to pursue

×