Government’s ‘war’ on Judicial Review panned

2 February 2013 by

Waronwaron copyRemember Pearl Harbour? Not the 1941 attack which propelled the USA into World War II, but the awful 2001 film starring Ben Affleck. What really sticks in the mind wasn’t the film itself, but the critical reaction. It is hard to remember a more gleeful spectacle, captured here, than reviewers falling over themselves to see who could produce the most withering response.

No doubt inspired by the Prime Minister’s own World War II analogy (on reflection, something of a hostage to fortune), legal commentators and organisations have also been falling over themselves, if not gleefully, to express their collective displeasure and disbelief at the poor quality of the Government’s proposals to reform Judicial Review.

As I have done with other consultations in the past, I have compiled – entirely unscientifically based on those who have sent them to me – a review of some of the consultation responses. As you can probably guess, it isn’t pretty. Although the responses vary in the finer details, most complain about the very short consultation period (six weeks over Christmas and new year), the lack of evidence underpinning the reforms and the generally poor quality of the recommendations. I have only been able to track down one broadly positive response, from the City of London Law Society, which addresses the aspects of the proposals which relate to planning law.

Administrative Law Bar Association (ALBA)“… we are concerned about the unacceptably short time frame for the consultation… no attempt is made to quantify the costs of unlawful action. Nor is any single example given of an innovation or reform that was wrongly delayed or frustrated as a result of the current procedures.. The object of measures like this is not to limit the number of cases as an end in itself but to ensure… that the resources of the court and the parties are not diverted to dealing with excessively weak or stale claims. But any restrictions of this nature will inevitably risk permitting some wrong decisions to stand…”

Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law“As Lord Dyson recently put it, “there is no principle more basic to our system of law than the maintenance of rule of law itself and the constitutional protection afforded by judicial review”. Indeed, it is difficult to overstate the fundamentality of the values protected by courts via judicial review… Proposing significant changes to the judicial review system in this way represents a fundamental failure to formulate policy on the basis of demonstrable and contestable evidence and perpetuates myths about the purpose and effect of our public law.”

British Institute of Human Rights: “BIHR is worried that the context for this consultation, and justifications provided within it do not sufficiently recognise the constitutional importance of judicial review… we note that restrictions placed on accessing judicial review, may raise concerns under the Human Rights Act… The European Court of Human Rights has been clear that our ECHR rights must be “practical and effective” and not “theoretical or illusory”.

British Irish Rights Watch: “Although the Government has argued that there are a number of judicial review claims which have been of ‘substantially the same matter’ it is noteworthy that the government has no evidence to support this claim. It only provides anecdotal evidence… We are concerned that the Government conflates the ‘growth’ of Judicial Review claims with a rise in claims without reasonable prospect of ‘success’. The statistics cited fail to record the number of claims which are settled out of court before judgment is made on permission.” [this response has no executive summary but is detailed and interesting so bears reading in full].

Child Poverty Action Group: “CPAG believes that the proposals in the Consultation will damage access to justice and the Rule of Law, while there is no evidence that they will achieve the Government’s aims of reducing the burden on public services or removing the unnecessary obstacles to economic recovery. We are particularly concerned by the heavy reliance on anecdotal and misleading statistical evidence”

City of London Law Society:  “Our experience bears out the concerns expressed by Government about the cost and delay of judicial review litigation and its use by claimants for tactical reasons; we also believe that there is clear evidence that the risk of judicial review results in more complexity, cost and delay in the planning system… Generally, we welcome the Government’s proposals and in particular the efforts to reduce delay in the judicial review procedure and to introduce more rigour to the screening of judicial review claims at the permission stage.”

Equality and Diversity Forum: “… the Ministry of Justice in its press release has said that – ‘The changes will not alter the important role that Judicial Review plays in holding Government and others to account’ and the Consultation Paper says that ‘The intention of these reforms is not to deny, or restrict, access to justice’. Nevertheless we are worried that these proposed changes will have exactly these adverse effects and we therefore consider that constraints on the application of Judicial Review should be approached with caution.”

Equality and Human Rights Commission“The Commission is not sure that the evidence advanced in the Consultation Paper supports the premise that there is a need for the changes proposed to the existing system of judicial review [nb. this is the most polite response…]… The Commission notes that there has not yet been an equality impact assessment undertaken in respect of the proposed changes.”

Medical Justice“Medical Justice has a particular concern in relation to the government’s proposals regarding time limits in cases where there is a continuing breach… this would be a highly retrograde step… Premature claims are more likely as organisations! may be forced to issue proceedings rather than engage in negotiations…There is a risk that vulnerable client groups that rely on the strategic litigation of organisations like Medical Justice may suffer the effects of unlawful policies..”

Northumbria Law School Public Law Research Group: “Where such far-reaching reforms are being suggested, it is a basic and fundamental requirement to base such reforms upon reliable and trustworthy evidence. No such evidence has been put forward… Without such evidence there is no mandate for, and therefore no legitimacy to, the proposals… One further concern that we would like to highlight is the lack of consultation time given.”

Reprieve“Judicial review is the most important single remedy in Reprieve’s legal work… Our past and ongoing judicial review cases have been crucial in exposing the most serious incidences of executive wrongdoing… Reprieve considers this to be an ill-conceived set of proposals, based on inadequate evidence, which will disproportionately affect the most vulnerable members of society and endanger the bringing of cases of the highest public importance.”

The Bar Council of England and Wales: “The problem with the proposals for reform is that they will have the effect of inhibiting access to justice and weakening the accountability of the executive without achieving the aims of speed and efficiency… Above all, the proposals to remove oral hearings in certain circumstances will damage access to justice. ”

The Law Society“The right to bring a judicial review to the courts is too important to be impaired by hasty reforms… Aside from the increase in the number of judicial review cases being brought before the courts, the consultation paper offers no analysis of the reasons for that trend… The claim that judicial review challenges to planning decisions are a drag on economic growth is no more than anecdotal assertion…”

University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Centre for Public Law: “Given immigration and asylum cases have been the driver for the growth of review in recent times, and given steps have been and are being taken to move a large portion of such claims out of the ordinary judicial review procedure, it would appear that the case for across-the-board reform of the review procedure premised on the “growth of judicial review” falls away.”

Responses from individualsJustin LeslieTerence EwingDavid Pollock

Obviously the consultation will have received more responses than are listed above. But it is now clear that key players, including The Law Society and the Bar Council, have essentially rejected the proposals.  These reforms may not be the Government’s Pearl Harbour, but they have managed to raise the ire of almost the entire legal community (not for the first time, as Francis Fitzgibbon QC has pointed out). With this level of criticism, it seems that the only responsible way forward would be a full surrender.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts


  1. Nick says:

    “Proposing significant changes to the (insert any area of public life) in this way represents a fundamental failure to formulate policy on the basis of demonstrable and contestable evidence and perpetuates myths about the purpose and effect of (insert any other area of policy reform here)” Bingham Centre.

    Can’t think of a better summary of the last two and a half years of coalition government.

  2. I don’t wish to compare access to justice in the UK with that in Libya, but I did find it a bit rich in light of these proposals for Cameron to profess support for the values of the rule of law and public accountability ( He must think that the rule of law is too strong, and that we have too much public accountability, in the UK at the moment.

  3. Adam (not Wagner) says:

    I don’t wish to compare access to justice in the UK with that in Libya, but I did find it a bit rich in light of these proposals for Cameron to profess support for the values of the rule of law and public accountability ( He must think that the rule of law is too strong, and that we have too much public accountability, in the UK at the moment.

  4. Adam, thank you for collecting these together and providing links to the responses.

    The responses rightly focus on two points: the lack of evidence and the importance of judicial review. However, the proposals themselves are extremely weak. If the government is committed to pursuing their proposals, they will gather enough ‘evidence’ to support their position* and will engage in the rhetoric regarding the importance of access to justice and so on.

    Going forward, the best way to challenge any these proposals is to tackle them at the level of detail. The substance and logic of the proposals simply do not make sense – but not all of the responses highlight this. If the ‘war’ on judicial review continues, I think the next battle will be on the detail. That’s where the devil really is.

    * I have done this myself, in other contexts.

  5. ObiterJ says:

    An excellent roundup of much of the adverse opinion about this seriously flawed, ill-considered proposal. Unfortunately, it is all a deliberate part of the government’s drive to reduce access to justice and to prevent its decisions and actions being challenged.

  6. John D says:

    I think the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Centre for Public Law have correctly identified the real reason behind this. As they point out, most (80-90 per cent?) of the previous review applications have related to immigration appeals and it is this area which government is seeking either to reduce or to treat differently and more simply. If the government is changing the rules and procedures on immigration cases, then I imagine they will happily drop these proposed changes to judicial review applications. Of course, it could be that they have achieved the result they wanted all along? By deflecting attention away from immigration procedures with a pseudo-consultation, they may have been left free to introduce changes to immigration procedures while everyone was looking the other way at judicial review?

  7. Anne Palmer says:

    As an ex Magistrate I suggest there is more need of Judicial Review now than ever before. Magistrates Courts seem to be disappearing from certain Town’s and Cities. This is wrong, for those Courts were and are vital for certain cases. A GREAT LOSS.

    As for the “Prime Minister’s own World War II analogy”, perhaps if he had lived through those years near to the Cities in this Country such as London, Coventry, Manchester, or even places like Plymouth that were bombed night after night, or if he had been sent night after night flying over the Continent and dropping bombs, he would have a better understanding of what that war was all about (IT WAS TO PREVENT FOREIGNERS FROM GOVERNING THIS COUNTRY) and perhaps be a leader instead of obeying the orders of those leaders in Brussels.

    RE The Bingham Rule of LAW above: As MP’s step forward in the House of Commons to place their hand on the Bible and swear the Oath, that Oath ends with the words , “ACCORDING TO LAW”. This is the Executive ECHOING the Queen’s own Coronation Oath. There are TWO OATHS operative here, to protect the nation and the people. The Queen’s oath, and the oath of her Executive to her. They are interlocking oaths to respect the RULE OF LAW at all times. Long may it remain thus.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: