The Bar Council, the Law Society and the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEx) have urged MPs to protect judicial review.
Writing to all MPs this week, the legal bodies argue that restricting judicial review will diminish constituents’ ability to challenge public authority decision-making on things which matter to them.
Part 4 of the Government’s Criminal Justice and Courts Bill will make it harder to challenge unlawful decision-making by government and public bodies, however, peers from all main parties last month amended the Bill, protecting judicial review from this legislative attack. The Lords amendments are due to be debated in a Commons vote next week.
Frances Edwards, president of CILEx says: “The amendments made by their lordships enable judges to apply tougher rules in appropriate cases, and not apply them where to do so would be wrong. This discretion is best held by the judge hearing the case.”
Commenting on the proposal to force judges to make intervening bodies in judicial review pay costs, Law Society president, Andrew Caplen, says: “Expert organisations do not wade in to judicial reviews for fun. The judge must first give them permission to make an intervention, and they do so because their expertise helps judges make more informed decisions. The government’s plan will have a chilling effect on organisations who do this important work at their own expense.”
