× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Decision making and appeals  →  Thread

Evidence lacking for Government’s proposed reforms to judicial review

shawn mach
Administrator

rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 3773

Joined: 14 April 2010

new report from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights

“In their new report, the Joint Committee on Human Rights says that evidence is lacking to support the reforms to judicial review proposed by the Government.

While restrictions on access to justice are in principle capable of justification, they must be proportionate, reasonable and based upon clear evidence as to their necessity, and the Committee makes clear that the evidential basis for the Government’s proposals is weak.”

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/joint-select/human-rights-committee/news/judicial-review-reform/

nevip
forum member

Welfare rights adviser - Sefton Council, Liverpool

Send message

Total Posts: 3135

Joined: 16 June 2010

There was a debate on the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill in the Lords yesterday.  Of interest was an amendment to clause 67 moved by Lord Pannick.  Clause 67 concerns third party costs orders in judicial review cases in the High Court and Court of Appeal.  Clause 67(4) is as follows:

“On an application to the High Court or the Court of Appeal by a relevant party to the proceedings, the court must order the intervener to pay any costs specified in the application that the court considers have been incurred by that party as a result of the intervener’s involvement in the proceedings”.

67(5) allows for costs not to be imposed if there are exceptional circumstances.  At present third party costs orders are at the complete discretion of the court under the Supreme Court Act 1981.  If clause 67 as it stands becomes law then that discretion largely disappears.  As Baroness Campbell observed of clause 67 during the course of debate:

“There is a very strong presumption that interveners will be liable for the other party’s costs arising from an intervention, as well as their own, unless there are exceptional circumstances. This, as I understand it, is regardless of the outcome of the case and of whether the intervention helped, so potentially they could be liable for the legal costs of the party who loses the case. As a lay person, I do not see the justice in that. At present, the court decides who pays the costs and, for me, this works perfectly well.

This provision appears to the lay person to be designed for one purpose only—to deter interventions from organizations with limited resources. Unlike government departments, they could not contemplate such a risk. That applies to many charities; I spoke about this at Second Reading. Many of them have very small budgets and are run by volunteers, who are only too aware—perhaps they are overcautious—of their responsibility to avoid any financial risks”.

The amendment was finally withdrawn after the minister promised to take the matter back for further consideration.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldhansrd/text/140730-0001.htm#14073047000229