header-logo header-logo

Judicial review process under threat

12 February 2020
Issue: 7874 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail
Bar chief warns against ‘snap decisions’ to curb judicial review

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.’

 

Issue: 7874 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll