Judicial Review and Courts Bill

Lord Trevethin and Oaksey Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 7th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trevethin and Oaksey (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, and I agree with what he said about the glorious success of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, assisted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, in Miller 2, but I will not go into that now. I agree also with what the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said about the very dubious Adams decision. If the Minister were to pick up the gauntlet in relation to that decision, he might find that quite a few of the legally qualified Members of the Chamber—who normally disagree with each other about such things—speak with one voice about the demerits of that decision.

I want to say a few words about—and solely about—Clause 2 and the reversal of the Supreme Court decision in Cart. The ouster clause in the Bill restores the position established by the decisions of the Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal in Cart. They were strong courts. The judgments were given respectively by the late Sir John Laws and Sir Stephen Sedley. They concluded that a refusal by the Upper Tribunal to grant permission to appeal was susceptible to JR, but only in two cases: first, on the ground that the Upper Tribunal had been guilty of what one may call “true”—or using the Court of Appeal’s terminology, “outright”—excess of jurisdiction, or, secondly, on the ground of some serious procedural irregularity—for instance, actual bias—which amounted to a fundamental denial of justice. The Bill, as drafted, reflects those two grounds quite properly. As Sir Stephen Sedley put it in the Court of Appeal: “Outright excess of jurisdiction”

or

“denial … of fundamental justice … represent the doing”

of something by the Upper Tribunal

“that Parliament cannot possibly have authorised it to do.”

What is “true” or “outright” excess of jurisdiction? Sir John Laws described it well in Cart: it denotes the case where the court—or tribunal, or executive decision-taker—

“travels into territory where it has no business.”

Such a case is different to the case where the court, tribunal or decision-taker has got it wrong, or is alleged to have got it wrong.

The Supreme Court in Cart overturned the decision of the lower courts. It observed that their approach led back to and, in a sense, reinstated, the distinction between “true” jurisdictional errors and other errors which had been “effectively abandoned” after the House of Lords’ decision in the Anisminic case in the late 60s. It was implicit in the Supreme Court’s judgment, I think, that this was considered a retrogressive and undesirable move.

However, as the Government said in their response to the report of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, there are real distinctions between three different things: “true” excess of jurisdiction; serious procedural error or abuse; and all other errors, whether of law or fact. Paragraph 55 of the Government’s response to the committee report states that the ouster clause in this Bill may be used as an example to guide the development of effective legislation in the future. Some will regard that as ominous. I am not sure; that will depend upon the context in which any such attempt is made. It does seem to me—at least—that the Government are right to bring these distinctions that I have mentioned into sharp focus.

Anisminic is an example of judges interpreting words to mean something they clearly do not mean in order to achieve a desired outcome. The relevant statute provided that determinations made by the relevant tribunal should not be called into question in court. The House of Lords held that a determination based on error of law is not a real determination but a nullity and, therefore, was not within the statutory provision. Given that only arguably erroneous determinations are likely to be called into question in court, this may diplomatically be described as a very strained construction indeed. Sir Stephen Sedley, who is not opposed to judicial activism in this field, has described the reasoning as

“close to intellectual sleight of hand”

and “a masterpiece of equivocation”. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, used the term “troublesome doctrine” and the “metaphysic of nullity” when discussing related concepts.

In the recent Privacy International decision, both the judges who spoke for the majority and those who dissented recognised the highly unsatisfactory nature of Anisminic. Lord Carnwath said something to that effect. In the interest of saving time I shall move to Lord Wilson, dissenting, who said that the Appellate Committee

“picked a fig-leaf with which it attempted to hide the essence of its reasoning … The committee thereby set up 50 years of linguistic confusion for all of us who have been heirs to its decision.”

As the Government’s response to the Faulks report says at paragraph 55, legislation is communication. The text cannot speak for itself; obviously, it has to be interpreted by the courts. Effective communication requires a common and stable language—a point made elegantly by Professor Ekins in his book on legislative intent. Linguistic sleight of hand of the type deployed in Anisminic in undesirable. It generates not merely confusion but an unnecessary degree of tension between the executive and the courts.

If, as I think may be the Government’s intention, the formulation of the ouster clause in this Bill accelerates the retreat from Anisminic and promotes effective communication between Parliament and the courts in what is certainly a delicate area, it may be regarded as a good thing.