A lawyer is contesting an “irrational, arbitrary and unlawful” decision by the Legal Aid Office not to cover the full legal costs of a man accused of a serious criminal offence.

The outcome of the case could have implications for other defendants granted government funding for their legal bills.

Outlining her application for judicial review last week before Acting Justice Cratonia Thompson, lawyer Victoria Greening, of Resolution Chambers, said the matter went far beyond the office declining to pay for court costs.

Ms Greening told the court it was “an argument on principle that needs to be resolved once and for all, so that certificate holders moving forward can be afforded their rights”.

Legal aid, which is covered by taxpayers, is in place to provide representation for defendants unable to afford a lawyer. A substantial proportion of applicants are accused of criminal offences.

The defendant, who was a client of Resolution Chambers, applied to the court repeatedly for bail and made an application for dismissal of the case under section 31 of the Criminal Justice and Procedure Act 2016.

Ms Greening said “substantial work” had gone into reviewing the case evidence, which could have led to an acquittal if the application for dismissal succeeded.

Her request for a judicial review comes in the wake of a call last month from an advocacy group, the Bermuda Equal Justice Initiative, for an overhaul of the legal aid procedure allowing the Legal Aid Committee to fund overseas King’s Counsel for cases requiring high-level expertise.

The group said that decisions by the committee to deny KC representation were having “a profoundly negative impact on the fairness of trials in Bermuda”.

The defendant in the Resolution Chambers case was granted a legal aid certificate in 2022, with the case subsequently assigned to Archibald Warner. The firm worked on the bail application and application for dismissal from November 2022 to September 2023.

The firm argued three applications for bail in court and prepared an application to have the matter dismissed after reviewing the evidence.

However, the client opted to cut off his representation through Resolution Chambers, with his certificate reassigned to an in-house Legal Aid counsel.

Ms Greening, as the firm’s director, confirmed the termination and then invoiced the Legal Aid Office for work totalling $11,770.

However, the Legal Aid Office only approved $5,340 and told the firm there was “no approval given for bail application and section 31 application” to have the case dismissed.

The firm responded that it had been approved $15,000 for trial preparation and $10,000 per week of trial, with $5,000 allocated to second counsel for preparation and a further $5,000 per week of trial.

It added: “We know of no policy or other directions that allow the Legal Aid Committee not to pay for genuine work carried out in preparation for trial.”

Appearing in court last week, Ms Greening called it “an important matter that goes beyond taxation”.

Her affidavit highlighted that there is no statutory appeal in the Legal Aid Act of 1980 and stated that the firm had written a pre-action letter to the Legal Aid Office but had received no reply.

Ms Greening told the court that it was “of greater importance than the $5,000 or so that I was not paid”, with the ruling potentially affecting how cases were handled for others approved for legal aid.

Mrs Justice Thompson set the matter for an August hearing.

Both the Ministry of Legal Affairs and Constitutional Reform and the Legal Aid Office were listed as respondents.

However, the ministry declined to comment ahead of a ruling.