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.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/26/downing-street-under-pressure-plans-restrict-judicial-review-access

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

Version 0 Version 1
Downing Street under pressure on plans to restrict judicial review access Downing Street under pressure on plans to restrict judicial review access
(about 15 hours later)
Downing Street is under pressure to make significant concessions on plans to curtail access to judicial review ahead of a key vote that could split the coalition.Downing Street is under pressure to make significant concessions on plans to curtail access to judicial review ahead of a key vote that could split the coalition.
Labour has challenged Liberal Democrat MPs to follow the example of many of the party’s leading peers and oppose restrictions introduced by the criminal justice and courts bill.Labour has challenged Liberal Democrat MPs to follow the example of many of the party’s leading peers and oppose restrictions introduced by the criminal justice and courts bill.
The House of Commons vote, which Conservative ministers hope will reverse government defeats in the Lords, is scheduled for Monday, in a so-called ping-pong session where legislation bounces back and forth between parliament’s two chambers until agreement is reached.The House of Commons vote, which Conservative ministers hope will reverse government defeats in the Lords, is scheduled for Monday, in a so-called ping-pong session where legislation bounces back and forth between parliament’s two chambers until agreement is reached.
Judicial review challenges are used to subject government decisions to scrutiny in the courts but the prime minister, David Cameron, has blamed the procedure for “time-wasting” and the justice secretary, Chris Grayling, has accused charities of exploiting cases for publicity purposes.Judicial review challenges are used to subject government decisions to scrutiny in the courts but the prime minister, David Cameron, has blamed the procedure for “time-wasting” and the justice secretary, Chris Grayling, has accused charities of exploiting cases for publicity purposes.
Lawyers warn that the bill, if enacted in its unamended form, will impose financial liabilities making it more difficult to challenge unlawful government decisions and subject public bodies to effective scrutiny.Lawyers warn that the bill, if enacted in its unamended form, will impose financial liabilities making it more difficult to challenge unlawful government decisions and subject public bodies to effective scrutiny.
Negotiations over revising the bill are understood to involve both the prime minister and the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, as well as the Lib Dem justice minister Simon Hughes.Negotiations over revising the bill are understood to involve both the prime minister and the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, as well as the Lib Dem justice minister Simon Hughes.
Lib Dem sources believe that ground will be given in an attempt to preserve coalition unity. Cameron is said to be most resistent to backing down and accepting some form of legislative compromise.Lib Dem sources believe that ground will be given in an attempt to preserve coalition unity. Cameron is said to be most resistent to backing down and accepting some form of legislative compromise.
The Lib Dem MP, Julian Huppert, who has led his party in the Commons debate on the bill, said he expected concessions. “Since this bill was first [drawn up] I have been extremely unhappy with proposals in it,” he said. “I have been arguing in particular over the proposals to charge interveners in judicial review cases for the costs of all the parties. I think it absolutely essential that Chris Grayling gives way on this and preserves judicial discretion [the right of the judge to make a final decision].”The Lib Dem MP, Julian Huppert, who has led his party in the Commons debate on the bill, said he expected concessions. “Since this bill was first [drawn up] I have been extremely unhappy with proposals in it,” he said. “I have been arguing in particular over the proposals to charge interveners in judicial review cases for the costs of all the parties. I think it absolutely essential that Chris Grayling gives way on this and preserves judicial discretion [the right of the judge to make a final decision].”
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “These reforms are designed to make sure judicial review continues its crucial role in holding authorities and others to account, but also that it is used for the right reasons and not abused by people to cause delays or to generate publicity for themselves or their organisations at the expense of ordinary taxpayers.”A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “These reforms are designed to make sure judicial review continues its crucial role in holding authorities and others to account, but also that it is used for the right reasons and not abused by people to cause delays or to generate publicity for themselves or their organisations at the expense of ordinary taxpayers.”
The precise wording of any revised government amendments are expected to be tabled later this week. In a letter to Clegg, Labour’s Sadiq Khan called on Liberal Democrat MPs to oppose the bill. The shadow justice secretary’s letter, seen by the Guardian, says the changes “represent an unconstitutional attack on the rights of the British people to hold those in power to account”.The precise wording of any revised government amendments are expected to be tabled later this week. In a letter to Clegg, Labour’s Sadiq Khan called on Liberal Democrat MPs to oppose the bill. The shadow justice secretary’s letter, seen by the Guardian, says the changes “represent an unconstitutional attack on the rights of the British people to hold those in power to account”.
It continues: “It cannot be right that the government of the day should close down a key component of our democracy just because they dislike being criticised … if other countries were pursuing policies like those of this government, we would rightly deride their attacks on democracy.It continues: “It cannot be right that the government of the day should close down a key component of our democracy just because they dislike being criticised … if other countries were pursuing policies like those of this government, we would rightly deride their attacks on democracy.
“I hope the Liberal Democrats will see sense on Monday and vote the right way to protect judicial review from those intent on its emasculation.” Lib Dem MPs should join Labour in the voting lobby, Khan said, and oppose those “intent at muzzling criticism”.“I hope the Liberal Democrats will see sense on Monday and vote the right way to protect judicial review from those intent on its emasculation.” Lib Dem MPs should join Labour in the voting lobby, Khan said, and oppose those “intent at muzzling criticism”.
The three main arms of the legal profession, the Bar Council, the Law Society and the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEx), have urged MPs to support the Lords amendments that were backed by prominent Lib Dems such as Lord Steel and Lady Williams. Several senior Tories, including the former chancellor Lord Howe, opposed the government.The three main arms of the legal profession, the Bar Council, the Law Society and the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEx), have urged MPs to support the Lords amendments that were backed by prominent Lib Dems such as Lord Steel and Lady Williams. Several senior Tories, including the former chancellor Lord Howe, opposed the government.
Peers voted by 247 to 181, a majority of 66, last month to ensure that judges keep their discretion over whether they can hear judicial review applications. The former lord chief justice, Lord Woolf, warned that the alternative amounted to an “elective dictatorship”.The government also lost other votes, including those on disclosure of applicant’s resources and the imposition of higher costs on organisations intervening in judicial review cases.Peers voted by 247 to 181, a majority of 66, last month to ensure that judges keep their discretion over whether they can hear judicial review applications. The former lord chief justice, Lord Woolf, warned that the alternative amounted to an “elective dictatorship”.The government also lost other votes, including those on disclosure of applicant’s resources and the imposition of higher costs on organisations intervening in judicial review cases.
Nicholas Lavender QC, chairman of the Bar Council, said: “Those in power sometimes get it wrong and judicial review is an important check on unlawful action by the government or other public bodies.Nicholas Lavender QC, chairman of the Bar Council, said: “Those in power sometimes get it wrong and judicial review is an important check on unlawful action by the government or other public bodies.
“It has been used to stop people being imprisoned without charge, care homes being closed unjustifiably, schools being moved without good reason or planning permission being wrongly granted or wrongly refused. Encouraging judges to force your friends and family to fork out when you challenge a public authority will prevent many people from seeking redress. Judicial review should not be restricted just to those who can afford it.”“It has been used to stop people being imprisoned without charge, care homes being closed unjustifiably, schools being moved without good reason or planning permission being wrongly granted or wrongly refused. Encouraging judges to force your friends and family to fork out when you challenge a public authority will prevent many people from seeking redress. Judicial review should not be restricted just to those who can afford it.”
Andrew Caplen, president of the Law Society, said: “This could rule out judicial review for some of the weakest and most vulnerable in society and would make it easier for public bodies to act without regard for the law. Expert organisations do not wade in to judicial reviews for fun. The judge must first give them permission to make an intervention, and they do so because their expertise helps judges make more informed decisions. The government’s plan will have a chilling effect on organisations who do this important work at their own expense.”Andrew Caplen, president of the Law Society, said: “This could rule out judicial review for some of the weakest and most vulnerable in society and would make it easier for public bodies to act without regard for the law. Expert organisations do not wade in to judicial reviews for fun. The judge must first give them permission to make an intervention, and they do so because their expertise helps judges make more informed decisions. The government’s plan will have a chilling effect on organisations who do this important work at their own expense.”
Frances Edwards, the president of CILEx said: “We strongly encourage parliament to not constrain judges from applying these [judicial review] rules fairly.”Frances Edwards, the president of CILEx said: “We strongly encourage parliament to not constrain judges from applying these [judicial review] rules fairly.”
Deborah Coles, co-director of Inquest, the charity which helps families in the coroner’s court, said: “Judicial review is a vital tool for ordinary people to hold the state to account when it exceeds or abuses its powers and to ensure effective challenge and scrutiny of decision making.
“In the absence of an appeals system for coroners, judicial review of coroners’ decisions has important repercussions, not just for a bereaved family but for the improvement of practice and procedure in coroner’s courts for the benefit of society as a whole.”