header-logo header-logo

Concerns over judicial review curbs

02 May 2013
Issue: 7558 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Immigration lawyers express dismay at government’s proposals

The government is to implement the majority of its controversial proposals on judicial review—prompting widespread concern among immigration lawyers.

Justice Secretary Chris Grayling said last week the changes would stop judicial review being used as “a cheap delaying tactic”. His department singled out immigration-related applications for criticism—8,734 out of 11,359 judicial review applications in 2011 were to overturn an immigration decision, but only 607 were considered suitable for a hearing and 31 ultimately successful.

The changes include withdrawing the right to a hearing in person if a written application is declared “totally without merit”.

Applicants whose written application is turned down will have to pay a £215 court fee.

The time limit for applying for a judicial review will be halved from three months to six weeks for challenges to planning decisions, and reduced from three months to four weeks for challenges to procurement decisions.

However, the government has dropped two of its proposals: scrapping oral renewals for cases which have already had a hearing on substantially the same matter; and clarifying when the time limit starts for cases where there is a continuing issue or multiple decisions.

Sarah Daley, barrister at Garden Court North chambers, said: “I certainly don’t agree that it is a ‘cheap delaying tactic’.

“The real problem, that they haven’t dealt with or don’t want to deal with, is the really poor quality of decision making in the UK Border Agency (UKBA) and Home Office, and the UKBA’s unwillingness to engage with you at an early stage. You must write a letter before action before applying for judicial review so they have an opportunity to engage with you long before you go to court, but they don’t.

“‘Totally without merit’ is a very worrying development. It is entirely new. The civil courts do have this but it is mainly used for vexatious litigants. There is a definite possibility that there could be a bad decision. Judges make mistakes. They are not infallible.”

Garden Court North is organising a meeting next week for concerned immigration practitioners in the north to discuss the proposals. Call 0161 236 1840 for further details.

Issue: 7558 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Ceri Morgan, knowledge counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, analyses the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, which reshapes the law of fiduciary relationships and common law bribery
The boundaries of media access in family law are scrutinised by Nicholas Dobson in NLJ this week
Reflecting on personal experience, Professor Graham Zellick KC, Senior Master of the Bench and former Reader of the Middle Temple, questions the unchecked power of parliamentary privilege
Geoff Dover, managing director at Heirloom Fair Legal, sets out a blueprint for ethical litigation funding in the wake of high-profile law firm collapses
James Grice, head of innovation and AI at Lawfront, explores how artificial intelligence is transforming the legal sector
back-to-top-scroll