Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Monday 28th July 2014 Lords Chamber

I suggest that those are the basic misunderstandings and misconceptions that underlie this whole attempt by legislation to cramp and stifle the court’s future powers. I made more detailed objections to Clause 64 at Second Reading. I shall not repeat them now, and I shall not deal with the other clauses not part of this group, which are similarly subject to the same basic objection that they would introduce heretical inhibitions into this area of the law, which has been a healthy development in our jurisprudence in the last 40 or 50 years.

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

My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me if, like other noble Lords, I preface what I say about the amendments in this group with a few general remarks about the proposals in the Bill for the reform of judicial review. In his Second Reading speech, the Minister described judicial review as,

“one of the most important means by which government and other public bodies can be held legally accountable for their decisions and actions”.—[Official Report, 30/6/14; cols. 1541.]

As Frances Gibb, the legal editor of the Times, reported in today’s edition, he stressed that the Government regarded judicial review as,

“terribly important and we are not trying to get rid of it”.

If that is right, we should have little difficulty, as a result of these debates, in persuading the Government to accept amendments to the proposals and to the Bill to ensure that judicial review is not threatened, as I and many other noble Lords believe that currently it is.

I suggest that the Government ought to respect the following six principles. First, judicial review exists for the purpose of enabling the citizen to hold the Executive to account. Secondly, of its nature, judicial review is a public law remedy. It follows that there is often, although not always, a significant public interest in ensuring that a judicial review case is heard and determined over and above the private interests of the citizen or citizens who bring the application.

Thirdly, judicial review cases, of their nature, attract support from numbers of concerned citizens and organisations—sometimes campaigning organisations—with an entirely legitimate interest in the issues involved. Fourthly—perhaps this is not a principle but part of the factual background—judicial review inevitably is often unpopular with government. It is therefore important that Parliament and the courts should be astute to ensure that it is not stifled by unduly restrictive procedures or rules. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, used the word “sensitive”; I suggest that is an entirely apt description of the requirement.

Fifthly, because financial gain is often not the primary purpose of judicial review cases, it is important that they can be brought without undue expense and without unacceptable financial risk for those who bring them, often out of public concern.

I believe that the sixth principle can be expressed very simply. It is this: trust the judges. Because, constitutionally, judicial review exists for the courts to hold the Executive to account, the best way of ensuring the robustness of that review procedure, and of gaining and maintaining public confidence in the procedure, is for the judges and not the Executive to be trusted to administer it.

I turn to Clause 64, which, as your Lordships have heard, seeks to ensure that any judicial review proceedings that can be classed as academic must fail. The test the clause seeks to apply is whether an unlawful decision by an arm of the Executive has, in fact, led to a “substantially different” outcome for the applicant from that which a lawfully reached decision would have produced. If it is “highly likely”—I repeat the criticism of that phrase—that the unlawful conduct has not made such a difference, the Bill proposes that leave to apply for judicial review must not be given. If leave is given and it turns out that the case is academic in the sense I mentioned, relief must be refused.

I accept that there may be purely academic cases that should not proceed to a hearing, even where it can be established that no part of the Executive has acted unlawfully—but, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, pointed out, the courts already have a discretion to refuse permission or relief in such a case. However, I know of no convincing evidence that in practice a significant number of cases is, or has been, brought in which it can fairly be said that the unlawful decision-making at issue must have made no difference to the outcome for the applicant.

However, the real issue here is whether the fact that a case turns out to be academic in that sense should inevitably lead to its being dismissed. I suggest that there will often be a public interest in having the conduct of the decision-maker examined and, if necessary, overruled if the decision made turns out to have been unlawfully made—even where it may be said to have made no difference.

My noble friend Lord Carlile mentioned the question of a lack of consultation where the repeat exercise, when consultation is properly carried out, may lead to the same result. However, to condemn the lack of consultation and to refuse relief in spite of it is, I suggest, entirely wrong. There is also the question of cases where points of law need clarification or where points of procedure or fact need establishing, and need establishing in the public interest, even where a decision might have made no difference.

Therefore, the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Carlile seek to make the refusal of relief in a case that turns out to be academic discretionary rather than mandatory and to add an extra condition for the refusal of relief. Relief, we submit, should be refused only if an application is both academic in the sense proposed in the Bill and such that the public interest or the overriding objective of dealing with a case justly does not require that it be determined. Our amendments would apply those tests both at the permission stage and at the relief stage in the High Court and in the Upper Tribunal.

I am not among those who hold the view that Parliament should never legislate on the subject of judicial review. It is the right of Parliament in our democracy to do so, and in that I differ slightly perhaps from the arguments put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. However, I suggest, along with him, that we should be extremely careful before restricting by legislation the right of the courts to intervene in unlawful decision-making by organs of government where the court considers it appropriate to do so.

I can add only that the way in which judicial review has developed over the past few decades has demonstrated the very considerable respect for the breadth of discretion by executive decision-makers. It would be appropriate for the Government now to show similar respect for the need for discretion to be exercised by the judges.

[Lord Horam (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

I was going to come on to this, but it is a highly pertinent point. The position as I understand it is that a decision which has resulted in a declaration, whether it is called a declaration formally or not, whereby the validity of the argument is acknowledged, might give the applicant the satisfaction—and, if there is any significance, significance can be drawn from it—of knowing that there has been an unlawful act, or whatever the nature of the challenge is. But that would not necessitate a full-blown hearing to determine something that is evident on the papers but does not require there to be a full hearing some months later, for example. I am concerned about that point, and I shall consider it further in terms of the mechanism whereby the answer can be given without the need for expensive and cumbersome litigation. I appreciate the point.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

May I press my noble friend the Minister a little further on that? As I read the clause as drafted, the fact that the:

“High Court … must refuse to grant relief”,

encompasses a refusal to grant the declaration. For that reason, I was concerned by the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, as he expressed it on the point, because my noble friend the Minister’s final speech has dwelt on the question of whether the no-difference test is met. What he does not appear to allow for—and I shall be corrected if I am wrong—is, if the no-difference test is met, under this clause as drafted there is nothing that the court can do if this were implemented, because it must refuse to grant relief. That is how it seems to me, and to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.

[Lord Faulks]

I do not think that I can expand much on my previous answer. If it makes no difference, it is true that, as the clause says, no relief should be granted. What I said that I would consider is the question of when it would make no difference but there is some benefit of a declaration or some judgment which reflects the lawfulness, whereby there might be some scope for providing that that should be given in the course of determining the very issue that Clause 64 covers. I think that that is as far as I can go. I shall consider the argument.

--- Later in debate ---

There is ample scope for the Government to react in a constructive way to the concerns of the committee. I hope that the Minister will give us some assurances in that respect, otherwise we certainly will have to return to that matter on Report, as we may have to after we have discussed further Clauses 66 to 68. I beg to move.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, I have not proposed any amendments to Clause 65, but I fully support what the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has said in seeking to implement the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, on which I sit, which recommended that rules of court that sought to implement the proposals of Clause 65 should be made by affirmative resolution.

On the general thrust of this clause, I regard it as entirely unjust for information to be required from any possible supporter of a judicial review application before the permission stage. It is that that Clause 65 would require. It would impose, in public law cases brought by the citizen to hold the Executive to account, a deterrent requirement that applies to no other English litigation. It has never been thought right to restrict access to the courts in this way, and I would suggest that it is particularly wrong to do so in public law cases.

I regret that I see this clause as no more than a threat. It seems to me to be calculated, whether intentionally or not, to have the effect of stifling applications for judicial review. Any supporter of such an application is to be subjected, before the application is brought, to a requirement to disclose all his financial resources, their nature and extent. That requirement is bound to be a significant deterrent to anyone with any means who is minded to support an application for judicial review. That so-called chilling effect I regard as reason enough for the Government to withdraw this clause.

I take as an example the relatively commonplace scenario of a group of residents in a village or a group of parents at a school who wish to challenge a decision of the local authority concerning services in their village or the closure of their school. Inevitably, some residents and some parents will be wealthier than others. The combined effect of Clauses 65 and 66 is likely to be to prevent the wealthier residents or parents from supporting the application for fear that they will be doomed to meet the lion’s share of any costs order made against the applicants if the judicial review application is not successful. That is likely to mean, in turn, that many meritorious applications for judicial review will not even reach the permission stage, let alone secure a determination, for want of financial support.

For that reason, Clause 65 is wrong in principle and, together with Clause 66, it represents a real fetter on the judicial review process. Clause 66 needs wholesale amendment, to which I will return in the next group. It is the case that the courts already have power to require information as to who is funding applications at the stage at which a costs application is made. That is the appropriate stage for that inquiry. Clause 66 needs amendment to see that that principle is preserved. But confining myself to Clause 65, I suggest that the idea that judicial applications should be choked off before the permission stage is entirely wrong.

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Lab)]

My Lords—