The introduction of ‘prospective-only’ quashing orders and the abolition of certain appeals from the Upper Tribunal as part of the government’s controversial reforms of judicial review will be debated by peers today.
Plans to introduce suspended quashing orders or to allow courts to make quashing orders without retrospective effect through the Judicial Review and Courts Bill face amendments from opposition parties, leading lawyers and a former master of the rolls.
Labour’s shadow justice minister Lord Ponsonby opposes the introduction of the ‘new remedies’ and also supports an amendment by public law silk Lord Pannick – who has warned the bill gives the judiciary ‘a remarkable power’ – which would remove the power to make prospective-only quashing orders.
Crossbench peer and EU law silk Lord Anderson, supported by Ponsonby, Pannick and former master of the rolls Lord Etherton, has proposed changes to the bill which would remove the ‘presumption’ that suspended or non-retrospective quashing orders should be made.
In a report published on Friday, the House of Lords’ constitution committee suggested peers should consider whether the bill ‘achieves the correct balance between providing courts with discretion and placing a presumption on how they should act’.
Former shadow attorney general Baroness Chakrabarti, supported by Ponsonby and the Liberal Democrats’ justice spokesperson and commercial law silk Lord Marks, has said she will oppose the removal of the Cart jurisdiction preventing the review of the Upper Tribunal’s permission to appeal decisions.
Etherton has proposed an entirely new clause in relation to Cart, which he says would ‘retain the Cart supervisory jurisdiction but bar any appeal from the court exercising the supervisory jurisdiction or any other challenge to decisions of that court whether by way of renewal or otherwise’.
Other significant amendments concern the introduction of automatic online convictions and penalties for certain summary offences, with Ponsonby proposing a requirement that prosecutors must be satisfied the accused ‘does not have any vulnerabilities and disabilities’ before accepting a conviction online.
Marks, meanwhile, calls for the Ministry of Justice to carry out an independent review into ‘the potential impact, efficacy and operational issues on defendants and the criminal justice system’ of automatic online convictions, while Chakrabarti has said she will oppose that clause in its entirety.
The first day of the bill’s committee stage begins this afternoon and will continue on Thursday.
8 Readers' comments