MPs back Grayling change to JR reform

Topics: Legal aid and access to justice,Government & politics

  • Print
  • Share
  • Comments (2)
  • Save

Related images

  • Chris Grayling

MPs have voted to defeat Lords amendments to the government’s plans for reforming judicial review.

The House of Commons tonight voted by margins of 66, 36 and 33 to remove the amendments and instead voted for a concession offered by justice secretary Chris Grayling last week.

Advertisement

That amendment will go back to the House of Lords for a vote on 9 December – a period referred to as ‘ping pong’ between the two houses of parliament.

The Lords voted last month to reject plans to make parties automatically pay costs for cases in which they intervene.

Under Grayling’s amendment, interveners would be liable for costs if their evidence and representations have not been ‘of significant assistance’ to the court.

Costs would also be imposed if the intervener has behaved ‘unreasonably’ and if a significant part of their evidence is on matters that are not necessary for the court to consider.

During a debate to a near-empty House of Commons, Grayling said he was ‘baffled’ by continued opposition to his plans, which form part of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act.

He said the legislation would stop challenges being made on ‘technicalities’, adding: ‘If you’re a government minister you’re confronted by the prospect of judicial review virtually every week’.

His amendment would allow parties to continue to bring justified judicial reviews, but prevent those made simply to delay decisions made legitimately by parliament.

Grayling said: ‘If a group can find a clever enough lawyer, almost any government decision can be judicially reviewed.’

Conservative MP Geoffrey Cox said he opposed the government amendment and warned permission hearings will turn into a ‘detailed and cumbersome process’.

Cox was one of two Conservative MPs, along with Zac Goldsmith, to vote against the government. Andrew Turner abstained.

Sarah Teather was the only Liberal Democrat MP to vote against the government, while newly elected UKIP MPs Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless also joined the opposition.

Shadow justice minister Andy Slaughter said the attempt to impose retrospective costs created ‘impossible hurdles’ for charities and not-for-profit organisations attempting to intervene on someone’s behalf.

He added: ‘In rejecting the lords amendments, the Tory-led government is savagely attacking the rights of the individual citizen to take on the state in court, opening the door for unlawful governments to avoid scrutiny.’

Readers' comments (2)

  • Does it not occur to Mr Grayling that there might be a fairly obvious reason why the ministers in his government are "confronted by the prospect of judicial review virtually every week"?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • To anonymous 08:51 - quite right!

    "During a debate to a near-empty House of Commons, Grayling said he was ‘baffled’ by continued opposition to his plans, which form part of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act."

    Mr Grayling, baffled? Surely people are not disagreeing with him?

    ...which actually is what this is all about. Stifling objection to their loony policies.

    These columns are awash with stories about people not getting the legal advice they need. On this one day, I've read Dyson saying because LIPs can't get legal advice, there WILL be miscarriages of justice (really? I wish someone had mentioned that before LASPO), and GPs saying the number of people needing legal advice has risen.

    It's not as if any of this was unexpected.

    Still, cheer up Chris, with any luck you won't have to clear up the mess.

    In the meantime, here's some light reading....

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Law-Dummies-Edition-John-Ventura/dp/0764558307

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

  • Print
  • Share
  • Comments (2)
  • Save

Lord lester cut

Lords sound legal privilege alarm over snooping bill

29 June 2016By

Protections needed on the face of the investigatory powers bill, QCs tell the government. 

Email inbox

London firm reported to SRA after £17k email case settlement

29 June 2016By

Litigant had objected after personal emails were accessed by lawyers working on the other side.

Lord Justice Longmore

Legal aid contributions decision to face judicial review

28 June 2016By

Court of Appeal urges ‘meaningful negotiations’ between parties in dispute over a capital contribution order.

Advertisement

Sign up for email news alerts

Daily Update. Keep abreast of the latest developments that affect the profession

Legal Services

Browse the magazine

Current Issue

The Gazette offers you up-to-the-minute national and international news, opinion, features, in-depth articles plus a jobs and appointments section.

Please click the link below for a digital edition