However, it proposed four reforms to reduce the need for citizens to challenge public bodies in the courts.
First, it suggested improving access to legal aid, which would increase access to early legal advice, evaluate the merit of claims early on and encourage settlement. Second, it suggested strengthening the pre-court stage to encourage settlement, including making time limits more flexible to allow for more negotiation.
Third, it proposed strengthening the duty to disclose information, as delays in disclosure often lead to increased costs on both sides. Fourth, it would bring back the right of appeal in immigration―according to the Law Society, since the avenues for appealing Home Office decisions were reduced the number of immigration judicial reviews has gone up.
The Faulks Review closed for submissions this week, and is expected to report before the end of this year.
A Law Society survey on some of the key areas being considered by the review received 370 responses from solicitors. The results suggested roughly one in two judicial review cases settle before they reach court, but the figure rises to 90% of claims settling in immigration law. Of claims that settled, nearly 80% favoured the claimant. Of claims that went to court, 40%-50% were decided for claimants and 50%-60% for public authorities.
David Greene, president of the Law Society, said: ‘Judicial review has a vital place in the UK’s constitutional balance of powers between the executive―the government―parliament and the courts.’
Hodge, Jones & Allen partner Alice Hardy said there had been a ‘steady decline’ in judicial review applications since 2015. ‘We see no justification for restricting access to justice still further, still less in such a wholescale, radical way.’
