Lords defeat Government over judicial review reforms

The UK Government has suffered three defeats in the House of Lords as it attempts to put limits on the ability to bring judicial review proceedings in England & Wales.

Peers backed a series of amendments to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill proposed by crossbencher Lord Pannick QC.

The first one rejects a proposed presumption that those who apply to intervene in a judicial review case will have to pay their own costs. The second deletes a provision that applications for judicial review could be refused if the defendant body could show that it was "highly likely" that the action challenged made no difference to the claimant’s situation, even if it was unlawful. The third removes a provision that would require applicants to give detailed information about how their application was being financed.

Among those voting against the Government were the former Conservative ministers Lord Deben (John Selwyn-Gummer) and Lord Howe, as well as 17 Liberal Democrat peers.

Lord Woolf, the fomer Lord Chief Justice, described the proposals to limit judicial discretion as creating an "elective dictatorship", adding: “It’s dangerous to go down the line of telling the judges what they have to do.”

Justice Secretary Chris Grayling is attempting to curb the "unnecessary delays" being caused by unsuccessful challenges, particularly by so-called “left wing” campaigners.

Minister Lord Faulks claimed the Government was "striking a balance between limiting potential for abuse of judicial review and protecting its role as check on public bodies", and that the debate had been marked by "hyperbole". The bill had already passed the Commons.

Lord Deben however said that judicial review represented the "British defence of freedom". Its existence had "made me a better minister because it made me think of the law, not my opinion".