header-logo header-logo

Government faces judicial review deadlock

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

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

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Banking and finance team welcomes partner in London

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
back-to-top-scroll