This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/feb/13/judicial-review-judges-supreme-court

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Judicial review is increasingly essential, judges warn government Judicial review is increasingly essential, judges warn government
(7 months later)
The two most senior judges in the UK have warned the government to be careful about limiting the availability of judicial review, which allows claimants to challenge the decisions of public bodies that may have misused or exceeded their powers.The two most senior judges in the UK have warned the government to be careful about limiting the availability of judicial review, which allows claimants to challenge the decisions of public bodies that may have misused or exceeded their powers.
Last November, David Cameron made a speech to the Confederation of British Industry in which he promised to abolish unnecessary restraints on businesses. He described judicial review as a "massive growth industry" that the government needed urgently "to get a grip on".Last November, David Cameron made a speech to the Confederation of British Industry in which he promised to abolish unnecessary restraints on businesses. He described judicial review as a "massive growth industry" that the government needed urgently "to get a grip on".
In a subsequent consultation paper, the government said it wanted to abolish oral applications for permission in cases where there had already been some sort of prior judicial process or where a judge had decided by reading a written application that a claim was totally without merit.In a subsequent consultation paper, the government said it wanted to abolish oral applications for permission in cases where there had already been some sort of prior judicial process or where a judge had decided by reading a written application that a claim was totally without merit.
Under the government's proposals, court fees would increase from £275 to as much as £705; the three-month time limit would be reduced to six weeks in planning cases and 30 days for public procurement challenges.Under the government's proposals, court fees would increase from £275 to as much as £705; the three-month time limit would be reduced to six weeks in planning cases and 30 days for public procurement challenges.
In oral evidence to the House of Lords constitution committee on Wednesday, Lord Neuberger, president of the supreme court, said: "Any attack on judicial review, or any attempt to limit it, has to be looked at very critically.In oral evidence to the House of Lords constitution committee on Wednesday, Lord Neuberger, president of the supreme court, said: "Any attack on judicial review, or any attempt to limit it, has to be looked at very critically.
"Judicial review is increasingly essential if we have an increasingly powerful executive. It is an irritant to the executive but it is a very important, fundamental control on the executive. And the fact that members of the executive know they are subject to judicial review helps ensure that they carry out their job properly.""Judicial review is increasingly essential if we have an increasingly powerful executive. It is an irritant to the executive but it is a very important, fundamental control on the executive. And the fact that members of the executive know they are subject to judicial review helps ensure that they carry out their job properly."
Neuberger's remarks were endorsed by Lord Hope, the court's deputy president.Neuberger's remarks were endorsed by Lord Hope, the court's deputy president.
"It would be very unfortunate for legislation to cut back the opportunity for judicial review," Hope said."It would be very unfortunate for legislation to cut back the opportunity for judicial review," Hope said.
"It is fundamental to the rule of law in our country that executive decisions are open to review by judges to see that they conform to what the rule of law requires. Any legislative changes would have to be undertaken very cautiously to see that they don't disturb that absolutely vital part of our constitutional arrangements.""It is fundamental to the rule of law in our country that executive decisions are open to review by judges to see that they conform to what the rule of law requires. Any legislative changes would have to be undertaken very cautiously to see that they don't disturb that absolutely vital part of our constitutional arrangements."
Hope told peers the primary responsibility for addressing any problems with judicial review rested with the judiciary. Steps were being taken to transfer to specialist tribunals immigration and asylum cases, which accounted for three-quarters of the caseload, he said.Hope told peers the primary responsibility for addressing any problems with judicial review rested with the judiciary. Steps were being taken to transfer to specialist tribunals immigration and asylum cases, which accounted for three-quarters of the caseload, he said.
And the court's deputy president, who retires this summer, had an unequivocal message for the government: "Legislative changes, such as cutting back on time limits, have all sorts of consequences, which I think would be better avoided if the judiciary can be allowed to get on with the changes which they are making at the moment."And the court's deputy president, who retires this summer, had an unequivocal message for the government: "Legislative changes, such as cutting back on time limits, have all sorts of consequences, which I think would be better avoided if the judiciary can be allowed to get on with the changes which they are making at the moment."
Neuberger shared his deputy's concerns. "So far as adjusting time limits is concerned, one has to face up to unintended consequences," he said.Neuberger shared his deputy's concerns. "So far as adjusting time limits is concerned, one has to face up to unintended consequences," he said.
"If you have shorter time limits, the risk is that people start proceedings when they would not have done so if they had more time to think about them. There would be many more applications for extensions of time, and you might find that the bright idea of cutting time limits turns out actually to increase the amount of litigation rather than decrease it. I'm not saying it would, but I do think one has to be careful.""If you have shorter time limits, the risk is that people start proceedings when they would not have done so if they had more time to think about them. There would be many more applications for extensions of time, and you might find that the bright idea of cutting time limits turns out actually to increase the amount of litigation rather than decrease it. I'm not saying it would, but I do think one has to be careful."
Neuberger believed parliament had a role to play in limiting the need for judicial review.Neuberger believed parliament had a role to play in limiting the need for judicial review.
He said: "A lot of legislation is far too complicated. The more complex it is, the more room there is for the people carrying it out – the executive – to make mistakes that then lead to judicial review.He said: "A lot of legislation is far too complicated. The more complex it is, the more room there is for the people carrying it out – the executive – to make mistakes that then lead to judicial review.
"The executive could have a role in ensuring that there are more routes of appeal to tribunals in immigration cases. And the judges have a duty to be robust and not to fall for technicalities which have no real merit.""The executive could have a role in ensuring that there are more routes of appeal to tribunals in immigration cases. And the judges have a duty to be robust and not to fall for technicalities which have no real merit."
The hearing, in committee room one of the House of Lords, was not without its lighter moments. Both judges used to sit there until 2009, when the law lords moved across Parliament Square to the new supreme court.The hearing, in committee room one of the House of Lords, was not without its lighter moments. Both judges used to sit there until 2009, when the law lords moved across Parliament Square to the new supreme court.
Their contribution, along with those of their colleagues who made the move, is recorded in a huge composite painting called The Last Judgment, which faces witnesses as they give evidence. Neuberger and Hope were able to admire their portraits as they addressed the committee.Their contribution, along with those of their colleagues who made the move, is recorded in a huge composite painting called The Last Judgment, which faces witnesses as they give evidence. Neuberger and Hope were able to admire their portraits as they addressed the committee.
They were also asked about the effect of broadcasting on the supreme court. Neuberger noted that his family had watched him on YouTube giving judgment: his wife had emailed him with instructions to "sit up straight" while his daughter had mentioned his "smug smile" at the end of a ruling.They were also asked about the effect of broadcasting on the supreme court. Neuberger noted that his family had watched him on YouTube giving judgment: his wife had emailed him with instructions to "sit up straight" while his daughter had mentioned his "smug smile" at the end of a ruling.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.