header-logo header-logo

Judicial Review Bill―could the worst be yet to come?

28 July 2021
Issue: 7943 / Categories: Legal News , Judicial review
printer mail-detail
The government has introduced its Judicial review and Courts Bill to parliament, to widespread dismay among lawyers

The Bill follows Lord Faulks’s Independent Review of Administrative Law last year into the balance between citizens’ rights to challenge government decisions and the need for effective government.

It gives judges discretion to: suspend the effect of a quashing order on a government department, to give the department more time to change; and limit or remove the retrospective effect of quashing orders, so judges can rule government action unlawful without invalidating its prior actions.

It removes what the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) terms ‘the inefficient “Cart” judicial reviews which can create unnecessary delay in immigration and asylum cases’. According to the MoJ, ‘Cart’ judgments, which allow parties refused permission to appeal at tribunal to bring a judicial review, have a success rate of three per cent compared to the 40-50% success rate of other cases.

However, ILPA (the Immigration Law Practitioners Association) said it was strongly opposed to the removal of ‘Cart’ judicial reviews. Its submission to the government’s consultation on judicial review reform included examples of 57 successful ‘Cart’ reviews, including a Sri Lankan torture survivor whose tribunal determination failed to mention a medico-legal report prepared by Medical Justice.

However, Michael Stacey, partner at Russell-Cooke, said: ‘The government seems intent on curtailing judicial review. 

‘Its own Faulks Review didn’t find much that was broken and needed fixing, but perhaps that was considered to be the wrong answer. The government’s narrative is judicial overreach, perhaps driven by continuing irritation with Lady Hale’s decision on prorogation.

‘That was soundly based on law since the time of James I, before that judges mainly kept their heads down or lost them. There is little evidence that there is any widespread problem with judicial overreach or that this is undermining effective government.’

Sophie Kemp, partner at Kingsley Napley, said: ‘The reforms steer clear of mandatory or presumptive suspended and non-retrospective quashing orders, which risked removing an important deterrent.

‘The impact of the reforms (if passed into law) will therefore depend on the exercise of judicial discretion and litigants on both sides will have to wait and see. In future litigation, it is expected that both defendants and claimants will need to carefully analyse the need for and impact of these new orders: claimants will no doubt seek to develop the line of reasoning in Ahmed (No 2) [2010] UKSC 5 where the Supreme Court ruled that it could not properly order a suspended quashing order because a court “should not lend itself to a procedure designed to obfuscate the effect of its judgment”.’

On the ‘Cart’ proposals, Kemp said: ‘The decision to exclude the review of Upper Tribunal permission-to-appeal decisions is potentially more ominous.

‘The clear signals from [the Lord Chancellor] Robert Buckland is that “more is yet to come” with many predicting that ouster clauses may become more widespread―with the new Bill setting the framework for the removal of judicial review in future legislation.

‘In summary thankfully the proposals to suspend quashing orders and limit their retrospective effect retain all-important judicial discretion and, at face value, are milder than feared. However, the decision to exclude the review of Upper Tribunal permission-to-appeal decisions is more troubling, marking the return of ouster clauses and possibly setting the groundwork for the removal of the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court in future legislation.’

Issue: 7943 / Categories: Legal News , Judicial review
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Maria Karaiskos KC, Church Court Chambers

NLJ Career Profile: Maria Karaiskos KC, Church Court Chambers

Maria Karaiskos KC, recently appointed as the first female head of Church Court Chambers, discusses breaking down barriers, the lure of the courtroom, and the power of storytelling

Cripps—Simon Main

Cripps—Simon Main

Firm strengthens residential property team with partner hire

Hugh James—Danielle Cahill

Hugh James—Danielle Cahill

Private wealth disputes team welcomes partner in London

NEWS
In a very special tribute in this week's NLJ, David Burrows reflects on the retirement of Patrick Allen, co-founder of Hodge Jones & Allen, whose career epitomised the heyday of legal aid
Writing in NLJ this week, Kelvin Rutledge KC of Cornerstone Barristers and Genevieve Screeche-Powell of Field Court Chambers examine the Court of Appeal’s rejection of a discrimination challenge to Tower Hamlets’ housing database
Michael Zander KC, Emeritus Professor at LSE, tracks the turbulent passage of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill through the House of Lords in this week's issue of NLJ. Two marathon debates drew contributions from nearly 200 peers, split between support, opposition and conditional approval
Alistair Mills of Landmark Chambers reflects on the Human Rights Act 1998 a quarter-century after it came into force, in this week's issue of NLJ
In his latest Civil Way column for NLJ, Stephen Gold surveys a raft of procedural changes and quirky disputes shaping civil practice. His message is clear: civil practitioners must brace for continual tweaks, unexpected contentions and rising costs in everyday litigation
back-to-top-scroll