header-logo header-logo

Lawyers give cool reception to Queen's Speech

12 May 2021
Issue: 7932 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Judicial review , Immigration & asylum , Planning
printer mail-detail
Lawyers brace for judicial review battle after reforms proposed

Lawyers have given an unenthusiastic response to the Queen’s Speech programme of 30 bills for the next Parliamentary term.

Law Society president I Stephanie Boyce said the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill would be meaningless without investment in the criminal justice system. She called for legal aid to be restored for early advice in housing, family and other areas.

However, it was the proposal to bring forward judicial review reform that caused most concern. Boyce said this risked ‘taking power away from citizens and putting more into the hands of government.

‘The independent panel convened by government to review the relationship between the courts and the state found no evidence of judicial overreach. Judicial review is an essential check on power’.

Chair of the Bar Council, Derek Sweeting QC agreed: ‘The judicial review process is central to access to justice for the public. We are concerned that some of the proposed reforms are far-reaching with insufficient time allowed for consultation or scrutiny.’

Both the Bar Council and the Law Society have expressed concerns about the Home Office’s ‘confused’ New Plan for Immigration consultation, which would be brought forward in a sovereign borders bill.

Another bill promised to ease planning controls and increase housebuilding in England.

Marnix Elsenaar, head of planning at Addleshaw Goddard, said: ‘The government has promised a Planning Bill to "modernise the planning system, so that more homes can be built". That's all we got. 

‘The Bill is likely to require local authorities to allocate land either for growth, so that new homes, schools, offices and shops will get a fast-track to planning approval, or for protection. Rumour has it that a third "regeneration" zone is being considered. What we can say with certainty is that the Bill will be a big step on the road away from the development control system that we're used to, towards a US-style zonal system that front-loads community engagement to the plan-making stage and provides a national and local design code that sets the parameters for what you can build.’

Other bills included a skills and post-16 education bill for England, and new laws to scrap the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Partner appointed as head of residential conveyancing for England

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

Specialist firm enhances corporate healthcare practice with partner appointment

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