Britain's most senior judge attacks judicial review curbs

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/oct/16/david-neuberger-uk-supreme-court

Version 0 of 1.

Government proposals to save money by reducing the number of judicial review cases may deter valid applications and save only "a pathetically small sum" of money, the UK's most senior judge has warned.

In a speech entitled Justice in the Age of Austerity, the president of the supreme court, Lord Neuberger, signalled his growing concern about the spate of legal reforms being introduced.

Overall justice was in "pretty good shape", he conceded, apart from two significant areas: sustaining access to the law and access to the courts. His comments were expressed in starker terms than previously.

Giving a memorial lecture organised by the civil rights group Justice, Lord Neuberger reserved his strongest words for the way in which ministers are attempting to curtail the ability to bring judicial reviews of government decisions.

He accepted the "desire to discourage weak applications" but went on: "One must be very careful about any proposals whose aim is to cut down the right to judicial review.

"The courts have no more important function than that of protecting citizens from the abuses and excesses of the executive – central government, local government or other public bodies.

"We must look at any proposed changes with particular care ... bearing in mind that the proposed changes come from the very body which is at the receiving end of judicial reviews."

Lord Neuberger pointed out that many delays in judicial review were now "historic" having already been resolved by removing asylum and immigration cases from the main civil courts.

"Cutting down time limits for judicial review applications may actually increase the work, due to rushed applications and many more requests for extensions of time. The cost-cutting proposals risk deterring a significant number of valid applications and will save a pathetically small sum."

Elsewhere in his speech Lord Neuberger observed that "cutting the cost of legal aid deprives the very people who most need the protection of the courts".

Two consequences were likely, he said: either claims would be dropped, which was "a rank denial of justice and a blot on the rule of law", or people would go through the courts as litigants in person without representation, cause significant delays.

Neuberger contested the Ministry of Justice's repeated complaints about "the high cost of lawyers". He said: "It is true that lawyers acting for multinational companies and wealthy individuals can earn a great deal of money; it is also true that there are one or two lawyers who make quite a bit of money out of legal aid work.

"But the great majority of lawyers who do government-funded work do not make very much money – especially when one allows for their expenses. And comparisons with the cost of legal aid in other countries is dangerous."

In the past the MoJ has defended the need to make savings in judicial review, arguing: "Our proposal would not prevent people receiving legal aid for future judicial reviews. But the problem at the moment is that of the 1,800 or so cases in which court proceedings begin, almost half are rejected by a judge. Taxpayers are currently paying unnecessarily towards those cases."

Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.