Posts Tagged ‘judicial review’
The Queen’s speech 2021: proposals affecting the English Legal System
In this note I set out a brief summary of those Bills which are most likely to impact upon the English Legal System and the topics I consider in my book on the subject.
Top of the list is the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. This Bill is not new, but is one being carried over from the last Parliament.
It has already attracted a great deal of public attention with widespread protests against its proposals for changing the law on the powers of the police to control demonstrations.
But it is a Bill which goes much wider than that and contains a range of important proposals which will affect reforms to the ways of working in courts and tribunals, on bail and on sentencing.
A Draft Victims Bill will also be published containing proposals to:
● Put into law the rights that were set out in the recent Victims’ Code which are designed to improve victims of crime experience of the criminal justice systeem; and
● Set expectations for the standard and availability of victim support for victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence.
Being a draft Bill, these ideas will be the subject of consultation before a definitive Bill is presented to Parliament. These measures are unlikely to become law for a couple of years.
A Judicial Review Bill is proposed. The issue of judicial review has been on the Government’s agenda for a long time. It was the subject of a review by a team led by Lord Faulks which suggested the possibility of some detailed changes to the current law (in particularly creating a power for the courts to suspend a quashing order) but which thought the main principles of the law should remain unchanged. The Government has launched a consultation on whether further questions need to be addressed, in particular whether and if so how the courts could be prevented from reviewing particular categories of issue. The outcome of this consultation is not yet available. I assume that the Bill which has been announced will not be published until the current consultation is completed.
A Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill is designed to repeal the Fixed-Terms Parliaments Act 2011. In addition, the briefing on the Bill states that it will revive the prerogative powers relating to the dissolution of Parliament, and the calling of a new Parliament. (This provokes an interesting question whether prerogative powers – which are the residual powers of the Crown still exercised by the Executive branch of Government – retain this character once they have been provided for in an Act of Parliament.)
Furthermore, it is said that the Bill will reaffirm ‘the long-standing position that the courts may not block a dissolution (and hence a general election)’ through a non-justiciability clause.
Both the Judicial Review Bill and the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill will be the subject of intense critical debate, particularly by constitutional and public lawyers as well as others interested in the operation of Government.
Finally, mention may be made of the Electoral Integrity Bill which make changes to the ways in which elections are run. In addition to the widely publicised proposal that voters should be required to bring some form of photo ID with them to the polling station, the Bill will also require election messages sent on social media should contain an ‘imprint’ showing who has published the message; improving access to polling stations for the disabled; and removing limits on the ability of UK citizens who live overseas (expats) to vote in UK elections.
The speech and the background briefing are available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/queens-speech-2021-background-briefing-notes
Collection of responses to the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL)
Given the importance of judicial review, it seems strange that the Independent Review of JR, chaired by Lord Faulks, decided it would not publish submissions it received to the Consultation it launched. This blog from the UK Institute for Administrative Justice very usefully provides a list of those submissions of which it is aware, with links to them.
Given the decision of the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL) not to make publicly available responses received as part of its call for evidence, UKAJI has decided to bring together in one place IRAL responses which have been made public. Should you wish to include an IRAL responses on this page, please contact Lee Marsons on lm17598@essex.ac.uk.
- The Administrative Justice Council (AJC)published its response to the IRAL
- The Administrative Law Bar Association (ALBA)published its response to the IRAL.
- Matrix Chamberspublished its response to the IRAL.
- Paul Daly (University of Ottawa)published his response to the IRAL.
- Young Legal Aid Lawyerspublished its response to the IRAL.
- The Public Law Projectpublishedits submission to the Independent Review of Administrative Law.
- Oxford Human Rights Hubpublished its response to the IRAL.
- British Institute of Human Rightspublished its response to the IRAL
View original post 231 more words
Independent Review of Administrative Law
In an earlier blog (13 July 2020), I noted the House of Lords Library paper on the proposed Constitution, Rights and Democracy Commission, an idea contained in the Conservative Party manifesto for the 2019 General Election.
Although no further steps towards the creation of the Commission have been announced, at the end of July 2020 the Government announced that it was establishing an independent review of administrative law to look in particular at judicial review – the power of the courts to review and where necessary overturn a decision made by Goverment.
Governments frequently complain that the use of judicial review can prevent them from taking decisions they think are necessary. Defenders of judicial review argue that the principle of the rule of law demands that executive/administrative actions can only be taken if they are authorised by law.
The Independent Review, chaired by Sir Edward Faulks QC, a former Minister of State for Civil Justice, has been asked to examine a number of questions relating to judicial review.
The Terms of Reference for the Review state that the Review should
- examine trends in judicial review of executive action, in particular in relation to the policies and decision making of the Government;
- bear in mind how the legitimate interest in the citizen being able to challenge the lawfulness of executive action through the courts can be properly balanced with the role of the executive to govern effectively under the law;
- consider data and evidence on the development of JR and of judicial decision-making and consider what (if any) options for reforms might be justified.
More specifically the review has to consider:
1. Whether the amenability of public law decisions to judicial review by the courts and the grounds of public law illegality (an area of law developed by the judges) should be codified in statute;
2. Whether the legal principle of non-justiciability (i.e. that certain types of decision cannot be reviews in the courts) requires clarification and, if so, the identity of subjects/areas where the issue of the justiciability/non-justiciability of the exercise of a public law power and/or function could be considered by the Government;
3. Whether, where the exercise of a public law power should be justiciable: (i) on which grounds the courts should be able to find a decision to be unlawful; (ii) whether those grounds should depend on the nature and subject matter of the power and (iii) the remedies available in respect of the various grounds on which a decision may be declared unlawful; and
4. Whether procedural reforms to judicial review are necessary, in general to “streamline the process”, and, in particular: (a) on the burden and effect of disclosure in particular in relation to “policy decisions” in Government; (b) in relation to the duty of candour, particularly as it affects Government; (c) on possible amendments to the law of standing – i.e. deciding who can bring an action by way of judicial review; (d) on time limits for bringing claims, (e) on the principles on which relief is granted in claims for judicial review, (f) on rights of appeal, including on the issue of permission to bring JR proceedings and; (g) on costs and interveners (the ability of bodies not parties to an action to intervene in the action by providing specialist advice or assistance).
The Review has been asked to report by the end of 2020. Recommendations will be considered by the Lord Chancellor and the Chancellor for the Duchy of Lancashire, Michael Gove.
Although the announcement does not state this, the creation of this panel is, at least in part, a result of the decision of the Supreme Court in R (on the application of Miller) (Appellant) v The Prime Minister (Respondent) [2019] UKSC 41. The issues in the case were noted in this blog on 24 September 2019. Although it was argued that the Prime Minister’s use of the prerogative to prorogue Parliament (i.e. bring a Parliament to an end prior to the holding of a General Election) was non-justiciable – i.e. it could be reviewed by the Court, the Supreme Court rejected this argument and found exercise of the power was justiciable. Further, there the effect of the Prime Minister’s decision was to prevent all Parliamentary activity for 5 weeks, this was far more than necessary to prepare for a General Election and so went beyond the scope of his prerogative power and was unlawful.
The announcement of the review and links to the Terms of Reference are at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-launches-independent-panel-to-look-at-judicial-review
The Supreme Court decision in the Miller case is at https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2019-0192.html
Proposed Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission
One proposal that caught the eye in the Conservative Party’s manifesto for the December 2019 general election was that, following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, it would be necessary to look at “broader aspects” of the UK’s constitution. The idea was that a constitution, democracy, and rights commission should be established to examine the following issues:
- the relationship between the government, parliament, and the courts;
- the functioning of the royal prerogative;
- the role of the House of Lords; and
- access to justice for ordinary people.
Other areas would include examining judicial review and amending the Human Rights Act 1998 to balance the rights of individuals, national security, and effective government.
The Government has said that it wants to ensure a range of expertise is represented on the commission. It also wants the commission to evidence from third parties and civic society to inform any recommendations. However, there are currently limited details available on the remit, form, and composition of the commission.
Several commentators and academics have welcomed the general principle of reviewing the UK’s constitutional arrangements. However, some have expressed concern about the context of the commission, particularly coming after the Supreme Court found against the Government on constitutional issues.
Those interested in starting to think about the issues which the Commission, once established, might consider will find the Research Briefing paper, written by Charley Coleman from the House of Lords Library and published in late March 2020, to be an excellent introduction.
The briefing can be found at https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/lln-2020-0089/
Judicial review and Covid-19: reflections on the role of crowdfunding
This is an interesting item on the use of crowdfunding to pursue issues arising out of the Covid 19 pandemic. it raises some interesting questions about whether this form of litigation finance is appropriate in all circustances.
Judicial review and Covid-19: reflections on the role of crowdfunding
Sam Guy – MA Social Research student and incoming ESRC-funded PhD candidate at the University of York
The Government’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic has been subject to significant numbers of judicial review challenges, many of which have been financed using crowdfunding. These cases, and the public’s responses to them, illuminate some of the opportunities and threats posed by this resource as a form of judicial review funding.
Crowdfunding as responsive collective action
There are at least two benefits of crowdfunding that have become particularly apparent in the pandemic. Firstly, it can offer a quick and expedient method for claimants to raise money towards potentially otherwise unaffordable litigation. The current environment for public interest judicial reviews is one of scarce state funding and high costs risk. Into this context, crowdfunding provides an alternative, democratised source of funding. As a result…
View original post 1,479 more words
A big day in the Supreme Court: R (on the application of Miller) (Appellant) v The Prime Minister (Respondent)
Major cases raising fundamental constitutional issues are rare, which is why 24 Sept 2019 is a significant day. The supreme court ruled that the Prime Minister’s decision to prorogue Parliament for 5 weeks was unlawful.
For the Prime Minister, it was argued, in essence, that the prorogation of Parliament is an act which falls within the scope of the Prerogative (acts formerly taken by the monarch in person, now taken by Ministers). As an essentially political decision, it should not be capable of review by a court – in the technical language it was not ‘justiciable’.
The Supreme Court – sitting with 11 justices – ruled unanimously that it was possible for the courts to judicially review the exercise of prerogative power – to determine whether such exercise fell within the accepted boundaries for the use of such powers. In short, the review of the power to prorogue was a justiciable matter.
That alone did not mean that the Government had acted unlawfully. Prorogation is an important part of the Parliamentary calendar. It brings one Parliamentary session to a close. Ministers then prepare a Queen’s Speech which sets out the Government’s legislative priorities for the coming 12 months. Members of the Supreme Court accepted that a prorogation for a short period was necessary, even though Parliament could not function during that period.
However, the justices accepted evidence (including evidence from the former Prime Minister Sir John Major) that in recent years prorogations tended to be for between 4 and 6 days. That was the average amount of time needed to sort out the Queen’s Speech.
The key point about a prorogation is that it brings all the work that can be carried on in Parliament to a complete standstill. No Committees can work, no Parliamentary Questions can be answered. Prorogation is distinct from recess when Parliament does not sit (e.g. in holiday periods) but other Parliamentary business does continue.
Improving Immigration and Asylum procedures
Immigration and asylum is always controversial. People have strong view, both for and against current immigration policy and practice. But these policies are underpinned by a legislative framework (albeit a very complex one) and if we believe, as I do, that upholding the rule is an important societal value, then it is important that those impacted by our law on immigration and asylum should be able to rely on decisions that are made in accordance with the law, and that there should be rights of appeal where something has gone wrong.
For a number of years, however, the immigration and asylum appeals process has been under close government scrutiny. In the early part of the 21st century, the concern was with the huge numbers of immigration cases being taken on judicial review to the High Court. More recently, most of these cases were taken away from the High Court and transferred to the Immigration and Asylum chambers of the First Tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal.
However, numbers remained high. In this context, there were concerns that too many cases brought were unmerited, being used as a delaying tactic to postpone deportation; and that some of those providing advice and assistance in immigration cases were not providing a properly professional service.
As part of its major series of reports on the justice system, written to assist the Transformation of our Justice System programme led by HM Courts and Tribunals Service, JUSTICE, the all-party Human Rights group, has just published a report Immigration and Asylum Appeals – a Fresh Look. (I declare an interest, I was a member of the working party, chaired by Sir Ross Cranston, that wrote the report.)
In it they try to take a dispassionate look at the problems and challenges which face the immigration and asylum appeals procedure. Their approach is to look at each of the steps through which a case may go in order to identify difficulties and recommend practical change.
The report is quite detailed. In outline, it argues:
• Home Office refusal decisions The Working Party’s view is that better Home Office decision-making – with more emphasis on getting it right first time – is the key to delivering a better appellate system;
• The application process for immigration and asylum appeals. Here the working party argues that more detailed attention needs to be paid to the move to online processes. At the same time the working party addresses the issue of unsupervised, unqualified and poor quality representatives purporting to provide advice and assistance to appellants;
• Appeals against adverse decisions of the Home Office on immigration and asylum matters in the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). This examines the important role of tribunal case workers in moving cases forward. It also wants to see stronger judicial case management to improve tribunal efficiency.
• Hearings in the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). This section of the report focusses in particular on video-conferencing and video-hearings, recognising the potential advantages of these models. At the same time, the report stresses the fundamental principles that should govern any expansion in their use and where they will not be appropriate.
• Appeals to the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), Judicial Reviewapplications and appeals to the Court of Appeal. This part of the report focusses on the multiple stages that may be gone through when seeking permission to appeal. The working party considered the tension between the important right of review in this jurisdiction and the pressure on the system that flows from too many appellate stages. While not recommending removing rights of appeal, the report outlines ways to streamline this process.
A key theme to emerge from the report is that there needs to be much better communication between the parties.The Working Party considers how this might be facilitated both at the pre-hearing stage and on a continuing informal basis.
Detailed recommendations are made on ways to improve the management of cases and to reduce the number of unnecessary appeals – to the benefit of all participants in the system and the administration of justice more generally.
The above note has been adapted from the report which is available at https://justice.org.uk/new-justice-working-party-report-on-immigration-and-asylum-appeals/
Setting limits to the exercise of prerogative powers: R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union
One of the most important legal challenges to the exercise of prerogative power has recently been made in the case of R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. This is the case that challenged the Government’s view that it could trigger Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union without the necessity for a vote in Parliament. This is a case of very considerable constitutional importance. I provide here links to a summary of the case, and to the whole judgement.
The decision of the Administrative Court is being appealed go the Supreme Court. The outcome of that hearing is expected early in 2017.
A summary of the decision can be found by clicking on the following link:
The full judgement is at
While it was accepted that the Government can use its prerogative power to enter international treaties, in the case of the European Union, the relationship between the UK and the EU was underpinned by the European Communities Act 1972, which had been enacted by the UK Parliament. The judges accepted that, if the UK were to exit the EU, this would inevitably result in rights and obligations brought into the UK’s domestic law by the Act of 1972 being altered.
The judges held that the Sovereignty of Parliament was the most important principle in the UK’s constitutional arrangements. While the Parliament could make or unmake any law, it was not permissible to use prerogative powers to change law enacted by Parliament. Thus, in the current situation, it was not permissible to use prerogative power to trigger the start of the process of leaving the EU.
Sections of the UK Press saw this decision as undermining the will of the people (as expressed in the result of the referendum on leaving the EU). However, a more sensible view is that in this decision the Court was deciding that the fundamental principle of the Sovereignty of Parliament should be upheld and that it was the proper function of the Court – which is independent of Government – to rule that in these circumstances the Sovereignty of Parliament was not to be undermined by the use of prerogative power.
Busting the myths of judicial review: new empirical evidence on outcomes and value for money
This post summarises the findings of a study into the effects of judicial review (JR) in England and Wales which was funded by the Nuffield Foundation and undertaken by the Public Law Project and the University of Essex, with Maurice Sunkin as the Principal Investigator.
By Varda Bondy, Lucinda Platt and Maurice Sunkin
Overview
The Value and Effects of Judicial Review: The Nature of Claims, their Outcomes and Consequences concerns the use and effects of judicial review (JR) in England and Wales, primarily from a claimant perspective. Judicial review provides a route for obtaining legal redress against public bodies, including in human rights cases, when no other suitable remedy is available. It also provides a means by which public bodies may be held accountable for the legality of their actions. In these ways JR gives practical effect to the rule of law.
The research:
- builds on previous work to throw…
View original post 778 more words
Judicial review: new consultation
Decisions on the reform of Judicial Review were taken by the last Coalition Government.
This consultation seeks views on detailed proposals for court and tribunal rules which are needed to bring into effect some of the changes made to juducial review procedures. Thus the consultation paper under review here sets out proposals:
- that a declaration of funding sources is required on an application for permission to bring judicial review;
- that details of third party funding or likely funding in connection with an application for judicial review, need not be provided where the funding is below a threshold of £1,500; and
- that a more detailed picture of the applicant’s financial circumstances is required on application for a costs capping order than on application for permission
The Government argues that these proposals will limit the potential for third party funders to avoid their appropriate liability for litigation costs.
It also intends that the new rules will ensure that when costs capping orders are made – limiting or abolishing a party’s costs liability – they are made in appropriate cases.
Details of the Consultation, which runs until mid September 2015, are at https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/reform-of-judicial-review-proposals-for-the-provis
Martin Partington: Introduction to the English Legal System 15th ed 2021
Oxford University Press Learning Link Resources
Martin Partington: Spotlight on the Justice System 