Judicial Review and Courts Bill

Lord Thomas of Gresford Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 7th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, I too welcome the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, back to his place. We worked together in the latter part of John Major’s Government; subsequently, when he occupied the Benches opposite, I am sure that we would have been on the same side on the Human Rights Bill, devolution and matters of that sort. It is very pleasant to see him back.

My first encounter with the prerogative writs was an application for leave to move for certiorari—what today is called a “quashing order”, to obtain the reversal of a decision to refuse a war pension to my client. He was suffering from what today would be easily recognised as PTSD, as a result of experiences he suffered in Montgomery’s push from El Alamein to Tunis. The Government were represented by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, who I am very pleased to see is in his place. Modesty forbids me from saying who won the case, but I would have been incensed if my client had been denied arrears of his war pension to the date of the decision—that would be the effect of the prospective quashing order proposed in this Bill—or denied it to some indeterminate point in the future to give the Government time to correct the defect in the decision, which I had established was unlawful; that would be the effect of the proposed suspended order. If the court had exercised a power to make a suspended and prospective order combined, my client would have won the case but received nothing.

Ubi ius, ibi remedium: where the law has established a right, there should be a corresponding remedy for its breach. The right to a remedy is a fundamental right, historically recognised in all legal systems. It would also have been unthinkable if those not parties to my case, but who benefited from the court’s declaration that the Government had acted unlawfully, had been denied their rights. Of course, we abolished the word “certiorari” some time ago—“too much Latin”, as my grandson, in his first year studying law in Cardiff, would say. It was out of date, too redolent of 800 years of history when, under the British Constitution, the High Court could insist that a Government, public body or inferior court had acted within the law. We called it the rule of law. Today, the rule of law is mocked, privately and publicly, by our own Prime Minister. But what under this Bill would be the point of any person taking proceedings against any public body if, when he had won the game at full time, that body were given extra time until it managed to score the winning try?

Another glaring defect is that the Bill markedly tilts the judge’s hitherto untrammelled discretion in determining the appropriate remedy in the Government or the body’s favour, even though the judge has found that it has acted unlawfully. Under new subsection (9), the court must make a prospective or suspended order or both,

“unless it sees good reason not to do so”.

I ask the Minister to explain and illustrate what he envisages is a “good reason”. New subsection (8) sets out a list of factors that the judge must consider in making an order. Is it intended that one of those factors would suffice to be a good reason?

Let me move on to Clause 2. The Minister has explained the Cart case. The Government have decided to prevent an appeal against refusal of leave to appeal from the first tier to the Upper Tribunal and endeavour to oust the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. However, it is not just that. The Government seek in the Bill to forge a template for an ouster clause—they freely admit it—which they hope will in the future be used in other Bills.

Let us look at the terms of that. Under the title of “Finality of decisions”, new subsections (2) and (3) declare that

“The decision is final, and not liable to be questioned or set aside in any other court … In particular … the Upper Tribunal is not to be regarded as having exceeded its powers by reason of any error made in reaching the decision … the supervisory jurisdiction”


of the Hight Court

“does not extend to, and no application or petition for judicial review may be made or brought in relation to, the decision”.

It is stamp, stamp, stamp. It is like someone is trying to put out a fire with a broom on the hillside.

I move on to Part 2. On the issue of online court proceedings, I am certainly in favour in principle, but there are concerns to be explored in Committee over the rights of those who have no facility for the use of, or access to, online technology. Similarly, I am concerned, as was the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that young people will not have the same access to interventions available in the criminal justice system to match the problems which have caused them to offend in the first place. As for inquests under Chapter 4, it is essential that we do not miss this opportunity to enshrine the principle of equality of arms into coroners’ proceedings. I have appeared in a number of inquests, sometimes funded by insurance companies, where there was a possibility of the insured being sued for negligence. On other occasions, I have appeared pro bono for relatives of the deceased. It is unconscionable that police forces, hospitals and the like should be fully funded by the state for representation by counsel, or perhaps by solicitors, while grieving relatives with no experience of any sort of court should be left to fend for themselves.

Finally, I shall want to explore the rationale in the 21st century for Rule 27 of the Coroners (Inquests) Rules 2013. This might sound a little exotic, but that rule reads in this way:

“No person may address the coroner or the jury as to the facts of who the deceased was and how, when and where the deceased came by his or her death.”


I have always considered it an anomaly that family representatives may not make submissions, either in person or by their lawyer, to a coroner or a coroner’s jury as to what their verdict should be.

Time and again, this Government have shown a tendency to try to rig the system in their own favour. In areas like mandatory and minimum sentences, and in this Bill, concerned with determining the lawfulness of government action and decision-making, they muscle in to usurp the discretion of that other essential limb of a liberal democracy, the judiciary. It refuses to let judges do their job. It must be resisted.