Judicial Review Bill Rebellion
Discussion
On Brexit and quite a few other things David Davis talks utter s
t IMO.
Have to agree with him on this though.
David Davis vows to lead rebellion against judicial review changes
Judicial review is the people’s right. I will fight this government’s attempts to destroy it
t IMO.Have to agree with him on this though.
David Davis vows to lead rebellion against judicial review changes
Judicial review is the people’s right. I will fight this government’s attempts to destroy it
Interesting subject for a thread; not sure you’re going to get much interest unfortunately.
I think Davies is on the money; JR is not exactly an immediately available remedy presently. Although to some extent tried on a sausage machine basis for immigration/asylum cases (and only succeed due to demonstrably unlawful or irrational official decisions), the bar to obtaining permission for the review is actually quite a high one in practice for most claimants and the best means of lessening the case numbers is simply for public bodies to act properly in the first place.
Sadly, I think the Govt will get their way; I do hope I’m wrong.
I think Davies is on the money; JR is not exactly an immediately available remedy presently. Although to some extent tried on a sausage machine basis for immigration/asylum cases (and only succeed due to demonstrably unlawful or irrational official decisions), the bar to obtaining permission for the review is actually quite a high one in practice for most claimants and the best means of lessening the case numbers is simply for public bodies to act properly in the first place.
Sadly, I think the Govt will get their way; I do hope I’m wrong.
Having government less answerable for their actions in law is dangerous and short sighted.
A government that actively tries to limit their accountability for acting within their powers, well one can draw ones own conclusions on such a government.
It certainly does not raise my opinion of them, or their leadership.
A government that actively tries to limit their accountability for acting within their powers, well one can draw ones own conclusions on such a government.
It certainly does not raise my opinion of them, or their leadership.
Stuart70 said:
Having government less answerable for their actions in law is dangerous and short sighted.
A government that actively tries to limit their accountability for acting within their powers, well one can draw ones own conclusions on such a government.
It certainly does not raise my opinion of them, or their leadership.
Can't disagree with any of that.A government that actively tries to limit their accountability for acting within their powers, well one can draw ones own conclusions on such a government.
It certainly does not raise my opinion of them, or their leadership.
This government are doing everything they can to grab power. This, the ability to overrule courts, lying to parliament, breaking the law (repeatedly). Boris thinks that he can do what he wants and, worryingly, it looks like he can to a significant extent. This is the behaviour people should worry about, not what nasty words some meanie in another party said. But as long as it remains about just voting for the correct rosette, no matter the behaviour or policies, nothing will change.
Electro1980 said:
This government are doing everything they can to grab power. This, the ability to overrule courts, lying to parliament, breaking the law (repeatedly). Boris thinks that he can do what he wants and, worryingly, it looks like he can to a significant extent. This is the behaviour people should worry about, not what nasty words some meanie in another party said. But as long as it remains about just voting for the correct rosette, no matter the behaviour or policies, nothing will change.
Exactly this sadly. The media don’t appear to be picking up on it that much and most people will not realize the implications until maybe it is too late.Covid and the psychological manipulation has been very good at convincing people who previously didn’t trust politicians to suddenly start believing every word they utter
Boringvolvodriver said:
Exactly this sadly. The media don’t appear to be picking up on it that much and most people will not realize the implications until maybe it is too late.
Covid and the psychological manipulation has been very good at convincing people who previously didn’t trust politicians to suddenly start believing every word they utter
I often do a little thought experiment called "what if Prime Minister Corbyn did it?".Covid and the psychological manipulation has been very good at convincing people who previously didn’t trust politicians to suddenly start believing every word they utter
Prime Minister Corbyn and Home Secretary Abbott say they want to limit your access to the courts and the justice system for the greater good.
Somehow I think people would have a thing or two to say about that.
This lot do it and there's barely so much as a whimper.
A different perspective on it from a professor of law
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/it-s-time-to-t...
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/it-s-time-to-t...
Boringvolvodriver said:
Exactly this sadly. The media don’t appear to be picking up on it that much and most people will not realize the implications until maybe it is too late.
Covid and the psychological manipulation has been very good at convincing people who previously didn’t trust politicians to suddenly start believing every word they utter
No fan of the Covid response as you might have gathered from my postings on the other thread. What has been noticeable though is the absence of any legal questioning of the rather extraordinary measures we have been subjected to during this time. Covid and the psychological manipulation has been very good at convincing people who previously didn’t trust politicians to suddenly start believing every word they utter
That is perhaps why there is a lack of interest in judicial review reforms. A foreign criminal trying to evade deportation can use JR and delay deportation because they haven't got a mobile phone signal. Green activists can use it to stop or delay national infrastructure works. The ordinary citizen sees no JR that safeguards their freedoms. Perhaps they have taken place and just haven't been reported on, who knows.
JR was also changed before. In 2012 it was reformed to time limit JR of planning decisions to try and reduce the length of time needed to build anything in this country.
bp1 said:
A different perspective on it from a professor of law
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/it-s-time-to-t...
Thankshttps://www.spectator.co.uk/article/it-s-time-to-t...
Doesn't actually sound that big a change to me, which is no doubt why most of the public seem not to care
Spectator said:
What does the Bill actually do? Only its first two clauses concern judicial review. The first clause is about remedies, authorising courts to suspend an order quashing government action, if the court judges this necessary to prevent needless disruption. The second clause reverses an important Supreme Court judgment and protects certain decisions of the Upper Tribunal from judicial review. In the end, the Bill does not go far beyond the rather cautious recommendations made by the Independent Review of Administrative Law.
Mr Davis takes aim at the second clause, asserting that it would stop the courts from correcting ‘fundamental and dangerous errors of law’. He misses the point. The Upper Tribunal is a court and it is wildly disproportionate to subject its decisions to judicial review proceedings. In enacting an ouster clause to exclude judicial review in this context, parliament will be restoring the law that parliament intended to make in 2007 and will undo the Supreme Court’s 2011 decision to make new law.
The 2012 changes probably made a more concrete difference to JR. Mr Davis takes aim at the second clause, asserting that it would stop the courts from correcting ‘fundamental and dangerous errors of law’. He misses the point. The Upper Tribunal is a court and it is wildly disproportionate to subject its decisions to judicial review proceedings. In enacting an ouster clause to exclude judicial review in this context, parliament will be restoring the law that parliament intended to make in 2007 and will undo the Supreme Court’s 2011 decision to make new law.
This isn't taking the power out of the hands of ordinary people, it's taking it out of the hands of people with an agenda and deep enough pockets to try and frustrate the will of parliament out of malice, spite or sheer political mischief.
Not that this parliament gives me much to be confident about, but I'd rather a country run by politicians I can vote out, than judges and wealthy people or organisations I can't.
It's unfashionable, since Tony Blair to think that there's much to preserve of the country's unwritten but centuries-old constitution, but I believe there is and parliamentary sovereignty is uppermost.
The amendments seem to me to only be reversing a couple of decades of judicial law creeping towards the supremacy of parliamentary law, able to be wielded by people with enough money to buy the access, which is not how it's supposed to work.
The changes aren't perfect and God knows politicians need better scrutiny (more so now than ever after nodding through 'emergency' legislation giving them powers far in excess of what they would normally have) but these changes don't materially make the poor scrutiny we already have any worse.
Of course the usual suspects will frame it as an attack on democracy, rather than a rebalancing of a centuries-old tradition that parliament decides our laws, not the judiciary and the wealthy.
Not that this parliament gives me much to be confident about, but I'd rather a country run by politicians I can vote out, than judges and wealthy people or organisations I can't.
It's unfashionable, since Tony Blair to think that there's much to preserve of the country's unwritten but centuries-old constitution, but I believe there is and parliamentary sovereignty is uppermost.
The amendments seem to me to only be reversing a couple of decades of judicial law creeping towards the supremacy of parliamentary law, able to be wielded by people with enough money to buy the access, which is not how it's supposed to work.
The changes aren't perfect and God knows politicians need better scrutiny (more so now than ever after nodding through 'emergency' legislation giving them powers far in excess of what they would normally have) but these changes don't materially make the poor scrutiny we already have any worse.
Of course the usual suspects will frame it as an attack on democracy, rather than a rebalancing of a centuries-old tradition that parliament decides our laws, not the judiciary and the wealthy.
Mark Benson said:
This isn't taking the power out of the hands of ordinary people, it's taking it out of the hands of people with an agenda and deep enough pockets to try and frustrate the will of parliament out of malice, spite or sheer political mischief.
Not that this parliament gives me much to be confident about, but I'd rather a country run by politicians I can vote out, than judges and wealthy people or organisations I can't.
It's unfashionable, since Tony Blair to think that there's much to preserve of the country's unwritten but centuries-old constitution, but I believe there is and parliamentary sovereignty is uppermost.
The amendments seem to me to only be reversing a couple of decades of judicial law creeping towards the supremacy of parliamentary law, able to be wielded by people with enough money to buy the access, which is not how it's supposed to work.
The changes aren't perfect and God knows politicians need better scrutiny (more so now than ever after nodding through 'emergency' legislation giving them powers far in excess of what they would normally have) but these changes don't materially make the poor scrutiny we already have any worse.
Of course the usual suspects will frame it as an attack on democracy, rather than a rebalancing of a centuries-old tradition that parliament decides our laws, not the judiciary and the wealthy.
Lord Sumpton has made similar points about the use of JR to effectively make law. If the Spectator is right though about the extent of the changes then it seems only a modest rebalancing. Not that this parliament gives me much to be confident about, but I'd rather a country run by politicians I can vote out, than judges and wealthy people or organisations I can't.
It's unfashionable, since Tony Blair to think that there's much to preserve of the country's unwritten but centuries-old constitution, but I believe there is and parliamentary sovereignty is uppermost.
The amendments seem to me to only be reversing a couple of decades of judicial law creeping towards the supremacy of parliamentary law, able to be wielded by people with enough money to buy the access, which is not how it's supposed to work.
The changes aren't perfect and God knows politicians need better scrutiny (more so now than ever after nodding through 'emergency' legislation giving them powers far in excess of what they would normally have) but these changes don't materially make the poor scrutiny we already have any worse.
Of course the usual suspects will frame it as an attack on democracy, rather than a rebalancing of a centuries-old tradition that parliament decides our laws, not the judiciary and the wealthy.
Mark Benson said:
This isn't taking the power out of the hands of ordinary people, it's taking it out of the hands of people with an agenda and deep enough pockets to try and frustrate the will of parliament out of malice, spite or sheer political mischief.
Not that this parliament gives me much to be confident about, but I'd rather a country run by politicians I can vote out, than judges and wealthy people or organisations I can't.
It's unfashionable, since Tony Blair to think that there's much to preserve of the country's unwritten but centuries-old constitution, but I believe there is and parliamentary sovereignty is uppermost.
The amendments seem to me to only be reversing a couple of decades of judicial law creeping towards the supremacy of parliamentary law, able to be wielded by people with enough money to buy the access, which is not how it's supposed to work.
The changes aren't perfect and God knows politicians need better scrutiny (more so now than ever after nodding through 'emergency' legislation giving them powers far in excess of what they would normally have) but these changes don't materially make the poor scrutiny we already have any worse.
Of course the usual suspects will frame it as an attack on democracy, rather than a rebalancing of a centuries-old tradition that parliament decides our laws, not the judiciary and the wealthy.
Putting aside that it’s not just the Government that is potentially susceptible to JR claims but all public bodies, you appear to overlook the inconvenient fact that for a claim to succeed there must have been done unlawfulness about the action or decision being impugned. It is, by definition, a mechanism to force public administrators and regulators to follow the will of Parliament as enacted. Not that this parliament gives me much to be confident about, but I'd rather a country run by politicians I can vote out, than judges and wealthy people or organisations I can't.
It's unfashionable, since Tony Blair to think that there's much to preserve of the country's unwritten but centuries-old constitution, but I believe there is and parliamentary sovereignty is uppermost.
The amendments seem to me to only be reversing a couple of decades of judicial law creeping towards the supremacy of parliamentary law, able to be wielded by people with enough money to buy the access, which is not how it's supposed to work.
The changes aren't perfect and God knows politicians need better scrutiny (more so now than ever after nodding through 'emergency' legislation giving them powers far in excess of what they would normally have) but these changes don't materially make the poor scrutiny we already have any worse.
Of course the usual suspects will frame it as an attack on democracy, rather than a rebalancing of a centuries-old tradition that parliament decides our laws, not the judiciary and the wealthy.
Pupp said:
Putting aside that it’s not just the Government that is potentially susceptible to JR claims but all public bodies, you appear to overlook the inconvenient fact that for a claim to succeed there must have been done unlawfulness about the action or decision being impugned. It is, by definition, a mechanism to force public administrators and regulators to follow the will of Parliament as enacted.
A slight correction on that is that is must be unlawful in the opinion of the judges concerned and in a number of cases they seemed to have stretched the law and even had their verdict overturned by the Supreme Court as a result.Take the JR into the third runway at Heathrow. This was ruled unlawful as it breaches our environmental commitments. Environmental commitments are something for the government to balance over an entire country and they may well accept increases in emissions in one area if it is offset by reductions elsewhere. The public would quite rightly expect such decisions, and decisions on national infrastructure projects in general, to be made by our elected government not unelected judges.
This decision was later overturned by the Supreme Court.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff