Judicial review process under threat

The Bar Council has warned against ‘snap decisions’ to curb judicial review, after the government reiterated its plans to review the procedure amid concerns about a deportation flight to Jamaica.

Proposals for a review to prevent the procedure being ‘abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays’ were included in the Conservative Party’s 2019 manifesto. Following a judicial review of a deportation flight this week, the Prime Minister’s spokesperson indicated that the government will press ahead with the review.

More than 20 people were removed from the deportation flight list this week after Lady Justice Simler held, in the Court of Appeal, that detainees were unable to access the requisite legal advice due to problems with the O2 phone network. A further hearing is due to take place next week. Many of the detainees came to Britain as toddlers or small children, prompting comparisons to the Windrush scandal.

According to the government, 17 people were deported the following morning. The Prime Minister’s press secretary later stated: ‘The Westminster bubble’s view of people trying to halt this flight with judicial reviews makes the case perfectly to the public about why such a review is needed.’

According to Amanda Pinto QC, Chair of the Bar Council, (pictured), however, government figures show a fall in judicial review applications of 44% from 2015 to the end of September 2019.

‘Far from being a mark of dysfunction, judicial review is an appropriate check on decision-making, of which a nation should be proud,’ she said.

‘We have not yet seen details of what a “review” of the judicial review process might look like, but anything that seeks to limit the ability of ordinary citizens to challenge decisions of those with power is a red flag.

‘There must not be any snap decisions to restrict a process that goes right to the root of our society, and which helps to uphold core principles including the separation of powers and the rule of law. Rather than attempting to block the exercise of anyone’s right to challenge it, the government should have confidence in its own decisions and not fear challenge.’