Judicial review vote “disappointment”

Lawyers have been left dismayed after House of Lords’ amendments to the judicial review reforms were rejected by the House of Commons.

Peers voted against government plans to limit the right to bring a judicial review in October. However, MPs scratched out these amendments this week.

MPs also passed a government amendment on interveners, which would make interveners retrospectively liable for costs if their evidence and representations were not “of significant assistance” to the court, if they behaved “unreasonably” or if a significant part of their evidence covered issues not necessary for the court to consider. The changes are included in Pt 4 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill.

Sara Ogilvie, policy officer, Liberty, described the result as “an immense disappointment”, and pointed out that those who benefit from judicial review include “individuals in care, victims of police brutality [and] groups concerned with issues as diverse as HS2”.

She said judicial review “puts the law above government, in exactly the same way that the law is above everybody else”.

Prior to the vote, a coalition of civil liberties, professional and campaign groups urged MPs to protect judicial review. They warned that the government’s proposals would deter legitimate challenge from vulnerable groups such as the disabled, the elderly and the homeless, limit judges’ discretion to act in the public interest and shield public agencies from effective oversight.

Andy Slaughter, shadow justice minister, says that imposing costs on interveners will create “impossible hurdles” for not-for-profit organisations.

The Bill is due to return to the House of Lords next week, when Peers could vote down the government amendment on interveners, in a parliamentary game of “ping-pong”.