Move to prevent judicial review scrutiny of unlawful actions by the government defeated again

The government’s plans to stop ordinary members of the public from being able to challenge unlawful actions by state bodies through judicial review have been dealt a second defeat in the House of Lords.

The Criminal Justice and Courts Bill would have made it more difficult for people to challenge unlawful government decisions by being granted permission to pursue judicial reviews. The Bill would have also imposed daunting financial liabilities for pursuing claims where permission to pursue judicial review was not granted – amounting to costs well beyond the scope of vulnerable legally aided claimants. As reported by The Guardian, lawyers and human rights groups have expressed concern that the Bill would shield public bodies from proper scrutiny if it was enacted without being significantly amended.

The House of Lords has rejected key proposals in the Bill for a second time, meaning that judges still have discretion to decide the merits of judicial review cases. It is now almost certain that the Bill will continue being amended and bounced between the House of Commons and the House of Lords until an agreement is reached – the process is known as 'ping-pong' in political circles.

Lord Jeremy Beecham, a labour peer, said in the debate: "The government, itself a possible defendant in these cases, seeks to restrict the exercise of judicial discretion in its own interests, and on the basis of the flimsiest evidence of the abuses it affects to detect in the working of the system and the decisions of the courts. In the unlikely event of [Vladimir] Putin becoming aware of the government’s approach he would be lost in admiration."