Introduction
This statement of case is submitted in support of the applicant’s request for permission to be represented in civil proceedings by a layperson of their own choosing. The applicant asserts that the right to defend oneself includes, as a matter of natural justice, equity, and the common law, the corresponding right to appoint a representative of one’s choosing unless that right is abused.
Legal Basis for the Right to Choose Representation
1. Common Law and Natural Justice
The right to a fair trial underpins the common law. Central to this is the principle that individuals are entitled to defend themselves in the manner they see fit. Where one lacks the skills or confidence to self-represent, the logical and equitable corollary is the right to choose a competent lay representative. This right cannot be contingent on licensing alone.
2. Equity and Access to Justice
Equity abhors a rigid rule that leads to injustice. Its core maxims—equity will not suffer a wrong without a remedy and equity regards as done that which ought to be done—demand that representation be determined by justice, not status. To exclude capable, willing lay representatives where there is no misconduct would be contrary to equity’s foundational principles.
3. Civil Procedure Rules and Equality of Arms
CPR 1.1 requires that all parties be on an equal footing and that proceedings be dealt with fairly. Excluding a litigant’s chosen representative while the opposing party benefits from professional legal advocacy undermines this balance. The court is obliged to ensure equality of arms and access to justice.
4. Article 6 HRA– Right to a Fair Hearing
The right to a fair trial under the Human Rights Act 1998 encompasses effective participation. This includes the right to legal assistance or appropriate alternatives. Where a litigant cannot afford or access a legal professional, the refusal to permit a lay representative risks violating Article 6 rights.
Precedent for Judicial Discretion and the Misuse of Status
Under Schedule 3 of the Legal Services Act 2007, courts retain discretion to grant rights of audience in individual cases. However, the current presumption operates in reverse—requiring justification to allow what should be a natural right, instead of requiring justification to refuse it.
Authorised legal professionals are held to duties that stand above client interests, including duties to the court, to uphold the law, and to act independently. These duties are enforceable only after harm has occurred. In contrast, lay advocates are pre-emptively barred without an opportunity to demonstrate good faith or capability.
Economic Discrimination
The refusal to allow lay representation disproportionately impacts individuals of limited means. Legal representation by authorised professionals remains prohibitively expensive for many, creating a barrier to justice based solely on wealth. The legal system thus creates a two-tier structure:
- Those who can afford professional legal representation enjoy full access to advocacy and procedural expertise;
- Those who cannot are forced to self-represent, often without the skills or capacity to present their case effectively.
This disparity violates the principle of equality before the law and constitutes economic discrimination. The court, bound by its duty to ensure fair proceedings under CPR 1.1 and the Human Rights Act 1998 (incorporating Article 6 ECHR), must take steps to level the playing field. Allowing lay representatives of the litigant’s own choosing is a proportionate and justifiable remedy.
The State as Claimant: Positive Obligation to Provide Funding
Where the state is a claimant in civil proceedings—such as in cases involving taxes, penalties, or fines—the imbalance of power becomes more acute. The state brings its case with institutional legal expertise, funded by public resources, against individuals who may lack even the basic means to respond effectively.
If the court refuses to allow lay representation in such circumstances, it must recognise its corresponding duty to provide an effective remedy. That remedy must include provision for public funding to enable the defendant to instruct a professional advocate of their choosing. This flows from the court’s responsibility to:
- Prevent discrimination based on economic status;
- Comply with Article 6 HRA requirement for a fair trial;
- Uphold the equitable maxim that equity will not suffer a wrong without a remedy.
It would be unconscionable, and a violation of natural justice, for the state to prosecute or sue individuals while also denying them affordable or accessible representation—either by lay advocate or by funded counsel. The court’s jurisdiction and authority extend to ordering such remedy where required to ensure a fair and proportionate defence.
The refusal to allow lay representation disproportionately impacts individuals of limited means. Legal representation by authorised professionals remains prohibitively expensive for many, creating a barrier to justice based solely on wealth. The legal system thus creates a two-tier structure:
- Those who can afford professional legal representation enjoy full access to advocacy and procedural expertise;
- Those who cannot are forced to self-represent, often without the skills or capacity to present their case effectively.
This disparity violates the principle of equality before the law and constitutes economic discrimination. The court, bound by its duty to ensure fair proceedings under CPR 1.1 and the Human Rights Act 1998 (incorporating Article 6 ECHR), must take steps to level the playing field. Allowing lay representatives of the litigant’s own choosing is a proportionate and justifiable remedy.
Proportionality and Reasonable Safeguards
The applicant supports a fair and principled approach: the right to appoint a lay representative should be the starting presumption. That right should only be withdrawn based on misconduct, consistent with how legal professionals are treated.
To that end, the applicant invites the court to adopt the proposed tick sheet for audience abuse (as set out in the policy proposal) as a neutral standard to evaluate lay and professional advocates alike.
Tick Sheet for Abuse-Based Removal of Audience Rights
To reinforce the fairness and proportionality of this application, the following tick sheet is submitted as a neutral evaluative tool to determine whether any person—lay or professional—should be denied the right of audience based on demonstrable misconduct. This framework ensures that the right to appoint a representative of one’s choosing is only withdrawn when justified by conduct, not status.
Tick Sheet Criteria for Reasoned Removal of Audience Rights
Applies Equally to Lay Representatives and Authorised Legal Professionals
- Dishonesty or Misleading the Court
- ☐ Knowingly presenting false or misleading information
- ☐ Suppressing adverse legal authorities
- Disruptive Conduct in Court
- ☐ Repeated interruptions or disrespect of the court process
- ☐ Disregard for procedural orders
- Incompetent Representation
- ☐ Inability to understand or apply basic legal procedure
- ☐ Failure to communicate or act in the client’s best interests
- Conflict of Interest
- ☐ Representing parties with competing interests
- ☐ Failure to disclose prior relationships or material conflicts
- Improper Influence or Undue Pressure
- ☐ Exercising coercion over the litigant or witnesses
- ☐ Misrepresenting authority to act
- Breach of Confidentiality or Privacy
- ☐ Disclosure of sensitive or protected client information without justification
- Contempt or Abuse of Process
- ☐ Using court proceedings to harass or oppress other parties
- ☐ Submitting repetitive, vexatious, or frivolous applications without merit
Review Mechanism
- Decisions to exclude a representative must be recorded in writing with reasons.
- Where exclusion is contemplated, the party should have an opportunity to respond.
- Judicial discretion must apply the same standard to both authorised and lay representatives.
Parliamentary Authority for Judges to Apply the Tick Sheet
Under the Legal Services Act 2007 and Schedule 3 thereof, individual judges are empowered by Parliament to grant or refuse rights of audience in the interests of justice. This authority inherently includes the power to apply neutral criteria—such as this tick sheet—equally to any person seeking to represent a party in proceedings. Applying the same standard to legal professionals and lay representatives ensures compliance with the Civil Procedure Rules, avoids discrimination, and upholds judicial integrity.
Relief Sought
The applicant respectfully requests:
- Permission to be represented by [name of lay person], a lay representative of their choosing;
- A declaration that such representation does not prejudice the fair or efficient administration of justice;
- A reaffirmation that the court’s discretion to regulate representation must be exercised equitably, without discrimination based on professional status.
Conclusion
In the interests of justice, equality, and fairness, the applicant should be entitled to proceed with the representative of their choice. This aligns with the CPR, the common law, the HRA, and the court’s inherent jurisdiction to ensure proceedings are conducted justly.