header-logo header-logo

30 October 2014
Issue: 7628 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Government faces judicial review deadlock

Peers unite to derail government plans to limit judicial review

The government has been urged to drop proposals to overhaul the judicial review process after a series of defeats in the House of Lords this week.

The government wants to clamp down on the number of frivolous challenges being used to hold up policies and is seeking to limit access to judicial review. However, Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers united behind crossbencher Lord Pannick and Labour peers to support three amendments to Pt 4 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill which will uphold legal discretion during judicial reviews.

Law Society President Andrew Caplen says the Society is pleased with the result: “It is clear that many peers share our view that a mechanism to hold the executive to account in the exercise of wide powers should not be lost. If the government acts unlawfully it must be brought to account in the courts.

“The government’s proposals would have restricted access to judicial review for some of the weakest and most vulnerable in society and made it easier for public bodies to act without regard to the law in some of the most sensitive areas of our lives. The government should drop its proposals.”

Defending the government’s proposals, Conservative peer Lord Faulks said the changes represented a sensible and considered package that would improve the process of judicial review for those with a “proper case” and went on to warn those voting in favour of the amendments that they would be removing altogether any reform at all of judicial review.

A ministry of justice spokesperson says: “These reforms are designed to make sure judicial review continues its crucial role in holding authorities and others to account, but also that it is used for the right reasons and not abused by people to cause delays or to generate publicity for themselves or their organisations at the expense of ordinary taxpayers.

“We are disappointed with the outcome of the vote. The government will consider how to respond when the Bill returns to the House of Commons.”

The Bill is expected to return to the Lords for its third reading early next month, after the amendments have been considered by the Commons.

 
Issue: 7628 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll