Govt to stop publishing impact assessments and make judicial review harder, says Prime Minister

So much for democracy and accountability eh?

I just hope it does not take another serious case review to establish why there are measures in the first place. Can’t wait to see the back of this govt!!

See the link below, p28 onwards for the real story about the increase in judicial review cases.  For example, immigration and asylum cases make for more than 50% of applications.

It is ridiculous to compare the situation in Britain to the Second World War when for a while Britain stood alone against the greatest military machine ever put into the field which had already conquered most of Europe and looked set to conquer Britain.  What does he suggest we do Re-enact the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939 which gave the State widespread draconian powers to restrain the liberty of the subject.  This man should not be allowed out without supervision.

Cameron and Grayling are either knaves or fools.  You decide.

http://www.thelawyer.com/governments-planned-judicial-review-revamp-misses-the-point/1015589.article

Very good blog by Dan Silver, director of the Social Action and Research Foundation, picking up on some of the points above.

On Cameron pledging to rip up red tape, he says: Such processes are not ‘bureaucratic nonsense’ but a means of being able to judge whether policy is equitable or not. The welfare reforms and the accompanying swingeing cuts to the advice services which help people to navigate through the changes will have a devastating impact on many people.

And he finishes with: A narrative of ‘scroungers’ serves to individualise blame for poverty, whilst neglecting the wider social factors that contribute – such as a socially unjust economy, a deeply unequal labour market and structural inequalities that pervade our society, as well as the fact that the majority of people in poverty are in fact working. Fundamentally, it absolves government of the need to consider how policy affects people’s lives. Such an approach will inevitably lead to impacts that cause tremors through our communities for many years to come.

To read the whole thing, see Neglecting the realities of poverty will lead to misery for many

Tom Slater in his paper referred to in the blog states that IDS ‘argues that Britain is at heart a conservative nation, but one committed to social justice: “The marriage of socially conservative views with a commitment to social justice is, perhaps, the most intellectually interesting characteristic of Britain’s conservative majority.”  (p.15) Aside from this ambiguous assertion, particularly striking in this document is that Duncan-Smith never says what he means by “social justice”. In fact, no definition appears on the CSJ website, or in any of its publications since 2004.’

In the footnote to this extract he says ““social justice”, of course, has never been part of Conservative intellectual history. Conservatives are most concerned with avoiding social breakdown, not achieving an abstraction like “justice”, and this has always underpinned their view of the welfare state. Conservative politicians, historically, only take an interest in poverty/inequality only in so far as it assists social cohesion to do so, and doesn’t ferment revolt where the wealthy are required to relinquish their property rights”.

Quite!

consultation on the JR reforms is now out ...

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/news/story/government-launches-consultation-on-proposals-to-stem-the-growth-in-applica/

the Public Law Project have published a briefing on the JR consultation ..

http://www.publiclawproject.org.uk/documents/Judicial_Review_Consultation_Briefing_Paper.pdf

... explains why the consultation should matter to all those concerned about preserving judicial review as one of the most important checks on abuse and misuse of state power, and addresses the myths and inaccuracies that appear in the consultation document

MoJ has announced measures which, it says, are ‘designed to drive out meritless applications to speed up the court system for people with genuine cases’, inc -

* Introducing a £215 court fee for anyone seeking a hearing in person after their initial written judicial review application has been turned down.
* Banning people from seeking a hearing in person if their initial written application has been ruled as totally without merit.
* Halving the time limit for applying for a judicial review of a planning decision from three months to six weeks.
* Reducing the time limit for applying for a judicial review of a procurement decision from three months to four weeks.

The changes are in addition to separate proposals being considered which would also see the fee for a Judicial Review application increase from £60 to £235.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/action-on-time-wasting-judicial-reviews

Gov.uk - propaganda vehicle????

Solicitors Journal article says that -

‘The Public Law Project has warned the Ministry of Justice that the lack of data underpinning its planned civil legal aid cuts ‘would render the consultation unlawful’.’

http://www.solicitorsjournal.com/news/public/administrative-and-constitutional/plp-plans-judicial-review-civil-legal-aid-cuts

Law Society Gazette today reports law firm Birnberg Peirce & Partners as saying that proposed residence test for legal aid is potentially ‘unlawful, discriminatory and unworkable’ -

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/residence-test-proposal-unlawful-and-unworkable