A groundbreaking Supreme Court judgment could pave the way for some criminal suspects who have been held in custody while awaiting trial to receive legal aid.

Last month Chief Justice Ian Kawaley ruled for the first time that being in custody was a relevant factor to be considered when the Legal Aid Committee looked at an application. However, the Chief Justice stressed that the success of such an application would depend on the “facts of each case”.

His judgment followed a legal challenge by a defendant, who can’t be named for legal reasons, who was refused legal aid and had been in custody for more than seven months.

The committee ruled the man could not receive legal aid as when he initially applied for it he was living with his parents and was part of the family’s household, and therefore the household’s income needed to be taken into account.

As a result the applicant launched an application for judicial review against the Attorney-General in the Supreme Court. Mr Justice Kawaley found that the committee had “erred in law” by determining that he was part of his parent’s household relating to his eligibility for legal aid.

“I accordingly find that the committee erred in law in reconsidering the applicant’s application for legal aid in March 2016 on the basis that he was at that time still to be regarded as part of his parents’ household for eligibility purposes,” said Mr Justice Kawaley.

“This finding should not be taken to suggest that the mere fact that an applicant is remanded in custody operates, without more, to effect a change of the household to which he belongs. Whether such a change has occurred will depend on the facts of each case.

“The applicant is entitled to an order of mandamus directing the Legal Aid Committee to issue him a legal aid certificate in respect of the case.”

In his judgment Mr Justice Kawaley said the committee should not be criticised for the way it handled the application.

He added: “The applicant did not present the most coherent or consistent series of applications and the present picture is somewhat different to that which confronted the committee in its deliberations.”

The applicant’s lawyer, Peter Sanderson, told The Royal Gazette that the judgment did not address the broader issue of who is included in a “household” generally.

“It establishes for the first time that being in custody is a relevant factor when considering whether a person is still part of a household on the outside,” said Mr Sanderson.

“This is of assistance only to people of limited means who have been remanded into custody. The judgment does not address the broader issues of who is included in a household generally.

“Further, legal aid is only available if the household income is less than $18,000 after some modest deductions, and very few households are under the threshold.”