Plans to restrict judicial review face further concessions
|
Version 0 of 1. The justice secretary has been forced to back down over plans to restrict judicial review in order to avoid a third successive defeat in the House of Lords. Chris Grayling has tabled three significant concessions to the criminal justice and courts bill, allowing judges to use their discretion in deciding whether challenges to government decisions can go ahead if they are of “exceptional public interest”. MPs were voting on the delayed legislation for a third time on Tuesday, with the Lords, who have repeatedly thrown out the bill, due to consider it next week. Lawyers and human rights groups had warned that the bill, if enacted in its original form, would impose financial liabilities, making it more difficult to challenge unlawful government decisions and subject public bodies to effective scrutiny. The first concession, not related to judicial review, was over the introduction of disciplinary powers to be used for confining convicted boys under the age of 15 and women in secure colleges. The Ministry of Justice amendment has accepted that there would have to be a further vote on a statutory instrument before the powers could come into force – a safeguard that peers had sought. Labour said the concession was sufficient. The government’s two other highly technical, judicial review amendments allow judges to make the final decision on whether to grant permission for a judicial review challenge, and allow judicial committees to decide at what financial level individuals who fund cases will have to be identified. A Labour party spokesman said the concession over disciplinary powers was sufficient but that the judicial review amendments did not go far enough. Lord Pannick QC, the barrister and cross-bench peer who has led opposition to the bill in the Lords, indicated that he would not urge further opposition. Pannick told the Guardian: “I’m not happy with [the amendments] because I still think the government’s proposals will unnecessarily damage judicial review, but I’m not proposing to invite open rejection of what the House of Commons has [now] done. The government has given way on the issues of principle. “They have accepted that judges should have the decision – even though it would have made no difference [to the ultimate outcome of some cases]. I’m not going to invite the House of Lords to oppose for a third time. “The whole episode shows the secretary of state’s failure to understand the purposes of judicial review. If and when the Conservative party go into opposition they will begin to see its virtues.” Labour’s shadow justice minister, Andy Slaughter, said: “Chris Grayling has been repeatedly forced to give ground on his misguided reforms, but even his latest attempt is found wanting. Judicial review is a vital legal remedy to abuse of power by the state and it is staggering that the coalition are still seeking to curtail its effectiveness.” In the last Lords defeat before Christmas, peers voted to reject key proposals by even larger margins than in the first vote. One amendment was defeated by 274 to 205 votes. Explaining the concessions, a ministry spokesperson said: “Through this bill we are making changes to toughen sentencing, improve education for young people in custody and ensure authorities can be challenged fairly, without an unfair expense on taxpayers. “We have listened carefully to views raised during recent debates, and have introduced additional safeguards to reassure both houses of parliament.” |