Committee warns reforms may interfere with access to justice
MPs from both sides of the Commons have slated government proposals to impose new curbs on judicial review, due to “weak” supportive evidence.
The already controversial proposals hit further rocks this week in the shape of a report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which rounded on the lack of evidence and the conflict of interest inherent in the Minister of State’s dual roles of Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice.
The MPs point out that the growth in judicial review cases in recent years, which the government cites as a fundamental reason for change, was due to an increase in immigration cases. However, these cases are now being dealt with outside that system so the problem no longer exists.
They argue that the proposals throw a spotlight on the conflict inherent in the Lord Chancellor Chris Grayling’s dual role, and call for a review of issues raised by this constitutional duality. They dismiss the government’s proposal to make legal aid for pre-permission work conditional on permission being granted (subject to the discretion of the Legal Aid Agency) as unjustified by the evidence available and as a potentially serious interference with access to justice.
They recommend that the government withdraw the regulations giving effect—by statutory instrument—to the proposals and instead bring them forward as an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill to give both Houses an opportunity to scrutinise and debate them in full.
Andrea Coomber, director of Justice, says: “We should all be watchdogs when the government tries to rewrite the rules in its favour. Pressing ahead with these changes will shield government—big and small—from scrutiny. MPs and Peers must act now.”
