header-logo header-logo

Government faces judicial review deadlock

30 October 2014
Issue: 7628 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Peers unite to derail government plans to limit judicial review

The government has been urged to drop proposals to overhaul the judicial review process after a series of defeats in the House of Lords this week.

The government wants to clamp down on the number of frivolous challenges being used to hold up policies and is seeking to limit access to judicial review. However, Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers united behind crossbencher Lord Pannick and Labour peers to support three amendments to Pt 4 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill which will uphold legal discretion during judicial reviews.

Law Society President Andrew Caplen says the Society is pleased with the result: “It is clear that many peers share our view that a mechanism to hold the executive to account in the exercise of wide powers should not be lost. If the government acts unlawfully it must be brought to account in the courts.

“The government’s proposals would have restricted access to judicial review for some of the weakest and most vulnerable in society and made it easier for public bodies to act without regard to the law in some of the most sensitive areas of our lives. The government should drop its proposals.”

Defending the government’s proposals, Conservative peer Lord Faulks said the changes represented a sensible and considered package that would improve the process of judicial review for those with a “proper case” and went on to warn those voting in favour of the amendments that they would be removing altogether any reform at all of judicial review.

A ministry of justice spokesperson says: “These reforms are designed to make sure judicial review continues its crucial role in holding authorities and others to account, but also that it is used for the right reasons and not abused by people to cause delays or to generate publicity for themselves or their organisations at the expense of ordinary taxpayers.

“We are disappointed with the outcome of the vote. The government will consider how to respond when the Bill returns to the House of Commons.”

The Bill is expected to return to the Lords for its third reading early next month, after the amendments have been considered by the Commons.

 
Issue: 7628 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll