Judicial Review and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames

Committee stage
Thursday 24th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group seek reviews or consultations in three quite disparate areas. The first, in Amendment 30 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, concerns the single justice procedure. The second, in Amendment 37 from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, concerns a call for an inquiry into the treatment of women and girls in the criminal justice system. The third, in Amendment 54 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, concerns local justice areas.

First, as to the single justice procedure, there is no reason in principle to oppose Clause 5, which is the related provision in the Bill. It simply extends the procedure to corporations—and it is probably an anomaly that it did not apply to corporations in the first place. Many of the points that I made during consideration of the first group, relating to a review of the new online procedure, also apply in respect of the single justice procedure. It would be sensible for the single justice procedure to be the subject of the same review, consultation and consideration as the new online procedure.

I join the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his helpful account today, and the help that he gives to the House generally as a practising magistrate and with his very important experience in the magistrates’ court. The magistracy is an extremely important part of our criminal justice system. I forget the precise statistic, but magistrates’ court deal with some 96% of all criminal cases. They are a crucial point of disposal.

I accept, as he did, that the single justice procedure has been of considerable use in minor cases generally, but he also pointed to the impersonality of that procedure and the lack of flexibility that it has in dealing with particular cases. It is valuable in minor cases and in cases such as television licence evasion, which I understand is one of the areas for which it is used. It has been particularly helpful with Covid regulations during the pandemic. However, we should not forget that imposing financial penalties remotely—for example, in the case of television licence evasion—can end up with people being severely penalised for failure to pay and even sent to prison. There is also significant evidence that that particular offence and its enforcement affect women disproportionately.

This brings me to the second area in which a review is sought in this group, Amendment 37, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, which seeks a judicial inquiry into the criminal courts’ treatment of and service to women and girls. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, spoke to it too. In debates on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, now back in the other place for further consideration of our amendments, I moved an amendment seeking the establishment of a women’s justice board. It had significant and widespread support around the House, and for me it is a matter of great regret that despite having the personal support of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, the Labour Party was not prepared to vote for the measure. If the measure had been supported by the Labour Party, we might have succeeded on that Division. That is a major reform for which I will continue to press. I hope that the support of those who supported it across the House in that Bill will continue to be forthcoming in future attempts, because it is one way to have a significant effect on addressing the difficulties of women and girls within the criminal justice system. Meanwhile, I of course support the noble Baroness in her Amendment 37.

Amendment 54 mandates consultation with relevant stakeholders about the abolition of local justice areas before that abolition under Clause 43 can come into effect. I see the merits of abolishing local justice areas. It will remove the boundaries between such areas, which—as the Explanatory Notes suggest—are largely artificial. That ought to enable magistrates’ courts to work on a more unified or at least a more collaborative basis and manage their work more logically. However, I listened with care to the note of caution introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. If it is intended by the abolition of local justice areas to destroy the local base of the magistracy, that would be a great step backwards. It is very important that magistrates are dispensing, are seen as dispensing, and understood as dispensing, local justice. While I am completely understanding of the proposal to alter the artificial boundaries so that courts can collaborate on wider areas or narrower areas as appropriate, so that the artificiality is removed, it is very important to preserve the local justice principle. I expect that we will hear more from the Minister about the consultations that have already taken place on this issue in response to the amendment, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say. I hope that he will address that point with care.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

I strongly agree that the magistracy is essentially a local service built up by knowledge of the area in which magistrates are asked to administer justice. It would be an extraordinary development to cut that out, because the knowledge of what is going on in their area is a source of strength to the magistracy in issuing judgments which, as has been pointed out, are a very high proportion of the total number dispensed throughout the country. On the other hand, I can see that sometimes a technical relief from the particularity of the boundary may be important. Perhaps that can be done without losing the principle of the locality of the magistracy.

I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said about the help that we are getting in this respect, having here a practising magistrate who knows the difficulties that arise and can be dealt with by personal experience. I also support the idea that we must have some system for noticing what the difficulties of different people are in relation to the courts, particularly women and girls. I imagine that this has to do with the treatment given by the courts, not particularly the question of certain types of crime that may not always be getting the result that we might expect in various situations.

Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Tuesday 3rd March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, I understand that the question to which this clause is an answer was in the consultation and that the answer in consultation was 12 months, whereas here it is six. I just wonder what superior knowledge the Government had in mind in going to six months when the consultation seemed to say 12.

I have had some experience in this area, 20-something years ago. When I proposed the 1996 Bill, I put in 12 months—that is what I am asking for now; I am nothing if not consistent—but on that occasion Parliament decided that it should in fact be 18 months. Putting it up by six months is something with which I am fairly familiar, so I invite my noble and learned friend to explain the situation.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, this amendment more than doubling the period before conditional order seems to be based on the proposition that the law obliging people to stay married for longer will either help children or encourage more reconciliations. In the debate on Amendment 2, speakers on all sides of the House demonstrated the fundamental commitment of us all to the welfare of children, who—as we all agree—suffer badly from family breakdown and its consequences. The noble and learned Lord spoke eloquently on that. For all the reasons given by many noble Lords in the earlier debate, I agree with those who have said there is no basis for saying that the children’s interests would be best served by denying or delaying divorce to one or both parties to a marriage who have determined on a divorce.

As for the second proposition, that keeping unwilling couples tied into a failed marriage for a longer period may lead to more reconciliations, the evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary. The decision to divorce is a hard one, rarely taken lightly. Of course, changes of mind occur. Separated couples often get back together—sometimes successfully and sometimes not, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, pointed out earlier—but in every such case they make the decision to reconcile willingly, not because they are obliged by law to try to do so. In some cases, of course, divorced couples even remarry each other. Again, that step is open to couples after divorce and is dependent on free will, not obligation.

Once the decision to divorce has been made, forcing parties to stay married for longer than is necessary to confirm that decision serves no purpose. Enforced delay rarely leads to reconciliation. It extends the unhappiness and uncertainty. It infringes on the parties’ autonomy, preventing them making decisions for themselves, arranging their new personal lives and futures, making safe and secure arrangements for their children and organising their family finances. It also—most significantly, I suggest—extends the hostility between the parties, who are frequently embittered by divorce proceedings and whose embitterment starts to heal only when the divorce is finalised and they go about the business of joint but separate parenting or building new, separate lives. This Bill is all about reducing bitterness by removing fault from the actual process of divorce.

The Government have proposed a 20-week period—reflecting other jurisdictions, such as New York and Finland—as appropriate for the confirmation of the decision to divorce. No period will ever be perfect to the week, but my belief is that the 20-week period to a conditional order is about right and is supported by the evidence. I commend the Government for choosing it.

Courts and Tribunals (Online Procedure) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 24th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, has reminded me that perhaps I should make the same declaration—so I do so now.

We support Amendments 22 to 24, not only for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Beith but for those given earlier in the debate, in particular by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. We regard it as very important that these rules should ensure a proper balance between the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice: between the Executive and the legislature. I also take the two points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. First, there are of course equivalent provisions in the existing rules, but I agree entirely with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, who pointed out that that should not be treated as a precedent, and that if there is anything wrong with the earlier rules, perhaps they should be changed. If the 2005 Act overlooked those changes, perhaps it should not have done so, because that was the point at which the changes should have been made; that is, when the balance between the Lord Chancellor and the administration of justice changed.

I also suggest that what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, said was telling. He said that the difference between consultation and concurrence is that where you have consultation, the Lord Chancellor will go to the Lord Chief Justice and check that the change in the rules is okay with him—or that is what he hopes he would do—and then he would go back to make the rule. However, it seems to me that the need for concurrence in these rules is dependent on the Lord Chancellor finding out that the rules are okay with the Lord Chief Justice and the requirement for concurrence is to determine the position where they are not okay with the Lord Chief Justice, and that is why we have the concurrence requirement. I will give way to the noble and learned Lord.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

We are talking about Clause 9, which is to do with regulations, not the making of the rules. It is the effect of existing law in relation to the rules that has to be dealt with.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 18th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

I think the noble Baroness has demonstrated the truth of what I am saying: namely, that she is concerned with the rights afforded by EU law in this country. The fact that those rights will continue to be enforced in this country is what the Bill is about. Therefore, I do not see any possibility of this amendment having any effect. The noble Baroness has just mentioned its operation in Italy, if the husband is there. That depends not on the domestic law of this country but on the law of Italy, and that is not part of what we can do in this Bill.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

I am terribly sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord when he has already been interrupted, but the point is that these provisions are all about reciprocity. They are about the mutuality of enforcement in other member states and in the United Kingdom. Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause seeks to address the problem with reciprocity. It says:

“The report provided for under subsection (1) must include … the steps, if any, taken by Ministers of the Crown to negotiate the continuation of reciprocal arrangements between the United Kingdom and member States in the field of family law”.


The point of that reciprocity is to ensure that United Kingdom citizens can enforce rights in other members states under the regulation in the same way as member state citizens—or former member state citizens as they would be—can in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

I take what the noble Lord is saying, but such a report would not be dealing with subsection (1). That is my point. Subsection (1) is the operative subsection and it deals with domestic law, and reciprocity is not a matter that can be dealt with by domestic law. The only thing we can do, as I said on the last occasion on which we discussed this, is make sure that our arrangements are suitable for reciprocity and, if the reciprocity comes, that we have the right arrangements to deal with it. That is our domestic side of reciprocity. The rest of the reciprocity belongs to the rest of Europe, and I hope it will see the benefit of this as much as us. However, as far as we are concerned, we are bringing the whole of EU law that refers to family matters into our law by virtue of this Bill, and a report about that would be otiose.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

The Government have repeatedly characterised this clause as being concerned with cases involving procedural irregularities only. Indeed, the Minister used the term “technicalities” as a diminutive, which is inappropriate. Such terms are inaccurate in relation to this clause. At very best, they are inadequate. These are public law cases concerned with unlawful conduct of the Executive where an organ of government has ignored the law in taking or carrying out decisions.

With the greatest respect to my noble friend Lord Horam, I must say that his assertion that the system of JR is rife with widespread abuse is unsupported by the evidence. Nor does he take into account the fact that judicial review is, at its heart, about decision-making in accordance with law. Nor does he take into account the fact that, certainly over recent years, judges have made it very difficult indeed, in the exercise of their discretion, for unmeritorious cases to get permission to proceed.

I do not regard this clause as merely protecting government from the effects of minor procedural errors that have made no difference to decision-making. I regard it, as do other noble Lords who have spoken, as an attack on the rule of law and an attack on parliamentary democracy. To take the example given by my noble friend Lord Lester, where a statute is passed by Parliament, often after discussions such as the ones that we have had on this Bill, which requires that the Government consult before making a decision, it should not be open to government to flout that requirement imposed by Parliament and then claim an immunity from judicial review on the basis that a lawful consultation would have made no difference to the outcome of the decision-making so that permission and relief should be withheld. That is the heart of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben.

The public interest amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, reflects an amendment that I moved in Committee. If carried, and if this House insists on it, a court will not be compelled to say, where a government department has acted unlawfully, that the decision would have been the same anyway and therefore permission to apply for judicial review must be refused and relief must be withheld. The court will instead be able to say that the decision was illegal and, before it can be properly made, the Government must follow the law—quite simply because that is what the law requires. That is the rule of law. That respects the will of Parliament. That gives effect to be principle of government accountability. This House has a constitutional duty to be very careful indeed when what is happening here happens—when the Executive seeks parliamentary sanction for breaking the law, as this clause does. I shall support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, the question in this particular amendment is a simple one. The courts have developed law in relation to situations in which the outcome would not be any different if the conduct complained of had not occurred. My understanding of the decision in that area is that the court may decide, if it concludes that the result would inevitably be the same, that the relief is to be refused.

The government Motion that is the subject of this substantial debate simply raises the question of whether that would be inevitable or “highly likely”. In the civil law, of which judicial review is part, the ordinary rule is that the balance of probabilities determines the fact. That is the question that was raised here and there is quite a lot to be said for that point of view. But the situation tonight is affected by the way the debate was conducted in the other place. It is not for us—it is certainly not for me and not for any of your Lordships—to criticise what happened in the other place. On the other hand, the Lord Chancellor has apologised to a Member of the other place for the mistake that he made, which is fairly fundamental to the consideration of this amendment. Therefore, for my part, I would like to see this amendment going back to the House of Commons, not necessarily to change the result—that is a matter for the Commons—but so that the debate should proceed on a basis that is 110% correct.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, throughout the passage of the Bill, my concern with these clauses has been that they would require any individual who was minded to support a judicial review application financially to disclose to the court his or her resources. That requirement is coupled with a requirement for the court, when considering questions of costs, to consider making a costs order against a supporter of an unsuccessful application, making use of the information disclosed.

With the greatest of respect to his argument, the Minister understated the effect of Clause 66. He said that the court would have to consider the information; what he did not take into account was that the court would be enjoined to consider making a costs order against the supporter. The inevitable effect of that would be to deter people from supporting judicial review applications financially. Group applications—for example, by groups of villagers or school parents—would then become very difficult indeed to fund.

This House’s amendments gave the court a discretion relating to financial information and costs orders. The Commons rejected our amendments and, in response to the concerns raised, my noble friend Lord Faulks and the Government have nevertheless introduced an amendment to provide that rules of court would exempt some supporters of judicial review applications from the financial disclosure requirement, provided their support did not exceed a level to be,

“set out in the rules”.

The difficulty, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out, is that the Government and my noble friend have given no indication of the level of support intended to be covered by their amendment. My noble friend and his officials—I am grateful to him and them for this—have met me and, I understand, others to discuss this amendment. I quite understand their position, enunciated by the Minister, which is that further work would need to be done to set an appropriate level. However, the Government are able to say nothing as to the level intended, except that it is likely to be a “few hundred pounds at most”. That is not satisfactory.

A very limited exemption for small-scale supporters would not significantly reduce the chilling effect of a disclosure requirement. It will not be anything like enough to enable groups to raise meaningful funds to support JR applications. I remind the House that most solicitors now charge about £250 or more per hour, even outside London. For the exemption to be meaningful, a supporter would have to be permitted to contribute several thousand pounds before financial disclosure was required. I accept the formulation put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, but that could be assessed when formulating the regulations on a percentage basis. I had in mind a figure of 20% as the starting point. I had in mind a figure of somewhere between £10,000 and £15,000 as a likely level below which disclosure would not be required. However, from the Government we have heard nothing, except that it would be figure of a few hundred pounds at most. That is not a significant concession.

What is necessary is that individual supporters providing small or medium sums, who are doing so genuinely to support the application—not as the real principals and not to try to control the litigation—should not be deterred from so doing by the costs threat involved in this clause. We need that as a statement of principle, but it needs to be a statement that shows that the principle has changed to meet the objective that I have just set out.

The Government’s stated aim in these clauses, restated by my noble friend, has been limited to ensuring that wealthy people do not use impecunious applicants to pursue litigation as fronts, with no risk in costs to themselves. He rightly used the argument of shell companies as supporting an argument that their promoters should not get protection. That is an understandable aim, properly expressed by my noble friend, which no one could sensibly criticise. However, I remind your Lordships that the court already has the power to require information and make costs orders against non-parties in such circumstances. However, if the Government wish to legislate to implement their stated aim, it would be entirely reasonable to expect them to limit the legislation to what is required to achieve that aim. That would mean a firm commitment to this House that the level set out in the rules would be such as to exempt from financial disclosure small and mid-range supporters of judicial review applications who were not seeking to control the litigation.

I have made it clear to the Government that I would be prepared to support the amendment in lieu if there were a clear statement that genuine supporters in this category who provided significant funds but did not wish to control the litigation would be protected. In the absence of such a statement, I feel obliged to support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to insist on the Lords amendments. The Commons will then have to consider whether it is prepared to incorporate the sort of principle that I have enunciated to protect the financing of group litigation and incorporate it into an amendment in lieu when it is sent back to this House.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, I had understood the Government’s proposed amendment as conferring power on the rule committee to determine what the rules should be. There is, of course, an ultimate power but I would expect the rules to be fixed by the rule committee, after appropriate consultation and with a fair amount of knowledge of how the whole system works. This kind of amendment would deal with the sort of problem that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and I referred to in Committee. The Government’s amendment would be a sensible one to make and the Minister has explained the principle under which it would work. I am perfectly happy to leave that to the rule committee to determine, in the light of its great experience and knowledge of the situation.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames

Monday 27th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, I simply do not accept that it is right that a requirement for financial disclosure should be imposed before the permission stage in a judicial review application. The time for considering such information is when the order for costs is considered, and not before. At the costs stage—the stage with which Clause 72 is concerned—it is clear which side has won, and the judge knows who is and who is not vulnerable to a costs order. Only at that stage is the issue of financial support relevant, and at that stage the present position is that the judge already has the power to make a costs order against a non-party who has financially supported an unmeritorious application. There is no utility in expanding or developing that power further. But if there is to be legislation, I urge the House to accept that it should be left to the discretion of the judge as to what order for costs he makes. There may be some sense, however, in legislating for the court at that stage to have the power to require financial information in order to help the judge form a conclusion. That is the limited purpose of my amendments to Clause 72. With your Lordships’ consent, I shall detain the House no further.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, those of your Lordships who were present in Committee will remember that I read out a substantial section of a book by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, in which he described what I understood to be the use of judicial review as a means of frustrating a government policy that had been passed by Parliament. I shall not repeat the detail now; it is in the book and I have put it on the record here. The problem on which the noble Lord focuses in that passage is that the arrangements made for pursuing this policy involved looking round for somebody who could be a legally aided litigant, and would therefore be provided with legal aid and also protected against costs in the event of his losing. The full detail is given in those passages.

It seems to me that some mechanism is required to enable the judges to deal with such points as part of the decision on whether permission will be granted to a particular individual to proceed. So far as I am concerned, judicial discretion in this area would be perfectly reasonable and, as has been said earlier, rules of court would be required to deal with it. There is definitely a problem here that needs to be dealt with at the opening stage of the proceedings in order that justice may be done in relation to that kind of campaign, which I have no reason to doubt is accurately described by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, whom I am sure your Lordships know and respect.