• Home
  • Blog
  • About
    • DPAC Policy Statement
    • DPAC Logo and Copyright Notice
  • Join DPAC
  • Stuff to buy
  • Local DPAC Groups
  • Research
  • Accessibility
  • Contact

DPAC

Disabled People Against Cuts
  • Home
  • Blog
  • About
    • DPAC Policy Statement
    • DPAC Logo and Copyright Notice
  • Join DPAC
  • Stuff to buy
  • Local DPAC Groups
  • Research
  • Accessibility
  • Contact
  • Categories
    • Access to Work
    • Action
    • All Posts
    • anti racism
    • Assisted Dying Bill
    • BBC
    • Bedroom tax
    • Benefits
    • charities
    • Climate change
    • council cuts
    • Disability Activism
    • disability hate crime
    • Disability History
    • Disability Rights
    • DisabilityCharityWatch
    • DLA
    • DPAC briefing notes
    • DPAC Reclaiming Our Futures Action
    • DPAC Research
    • DRUK
    • DWP
    • ESA
    • Europe
    • European Network on Independent Living (ENIL)
    • Events
    • fuel poverty
    • Humour
    • ILF
    • ILF Diaries
    • Inclusive Education
    • Independent Living
    • Independent Living Fund ILF
    • international
    • Job Centres
    • Legal aid
    • legal challenges
    • Letters
    • local authority cuts
    • local groups
    • Maximus
    • media
    • Mental Health
    • MHRN
    • News
      • Atos
    • NHS
    • OCAP
    • PIP
    • Politics
    • professional oppression
    • reclaiming our furtures
    • Reclaiming our Futures
    • Resources
    • sanctions
    • Social Model
    • Speeches
    • transport
    • UK Disabled Peoples Manifesto Reclaiming our Futures
    • UNCRPD
    • Universal Credit
    • UNUM
    • WCA
    • welfare cuts
    • Welfare reforms
    • Who2Vote4?
    • workfare
    • write to your local councillor
    • Write to your MP

CHANGES TO JUDICIAL REVIEW: stopping us holding Gov to Account

 News  3 Responses »
Mar 132014
 

CHANGES TO JUDICIAL REVIEW:

UNDERMINING CITIZENS’ ABILITY TO  HOLD GOVERNMENT TO ACCOUNT

 

CIVIL SOCIETY BRIEFING PAPER

PART 4 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND COURTS BILL

MARCH 2014

 

The Government has introduced a Bill designed to make it harder for individuals and civil society groups to bring claims for judicial review. The effect of the Bill will be to undermine Governmental accountability and transparency, and to insulate public bodies from scrutiny. It is deeply undemocratic. Anyone, whatever their political allegiance or their cause, should be gravely concerned by this self-interested attempt to limit citizens’ access to the court.

 

The Bill is currently going through the Committee Stage in the House of Commons. It is vital that the Bill is amended so as to maintain the UK’s proud tradition of enabling citizens to challenge unlawful Government action in the courts.

 

Judicial review is a vital tool to hold public bodies to account

 

Judicial review is the legal mechanism by which unfair and unlawful decisions made by public bodies can be challenged. Claims can be brought by individuals or groups who are affected by the decision. Examples of the kinds of decisions that may be subject to judicial review include:

  • Decisions by local authorities to close down libraries, hospitals, care homes, advice centres or disabled people’s services;
  • Decisions by the Department of Health to limit the availability of particular types of medical treatment, such as new cancer drugs;
  • Decisions by the police or CPS not to investigate or prosecute allegations of domestic abuse, sexual assault or forced marriage;
  • Decisions by the Department of Transport to build roads or railway lines across parks, gardens and countryside.

Judicial review has been one of the main ways in which disabled people can help protect their rights using the law. It is a vitally important weapon for us to have available to us.

Challenges to these decisions may arise because a public body has failed to act within its legal powers, has followed the wrong procedure or otherwise acted unfairly or unreasonably. The purpose of judicial review is to prevent government and other public bodies from acting unlawfully. Its primary concern is not individual rights, but the maintenance of the rule of law. Claims may be brought in the public interest by civil society groups such as charities or community groups who may advocate on behalf of disabled people, or the elderly, or for the protection of an area of outstanding natural beauty. Where they have particular expertise, and only where the court agrees their involvement would help, such groups can also ‘intervene’ in cases to help provide the information necessary for the court to make the best decision. 

Part 4 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill will make it difficult for civil society organisations and individuals to access judicial review, allowing unlawful and unfair government action to go unchallenged 

The effect of Part 4 of the Bill will be to make it much harder for individuals and groups to bring judicial reviews, regardless of the strength of their case or the importance of what is at stake. The Bill proposes to:

  • Make it much more difficult for charities, NGO’s individuals and campaign groups to bring important judicial reviews by significantly increasing the financial risk to which they would be exposed. This means that such claimants would risk being hit with a bill worth tens of thousands of pounds if they lose the case, no matter how important the issue, or how reasonably they had acted. In many cases, this risk will prevent cases from being brought in the first place, no matter how strong or important they are.
  • Deter NGOs and charities from taking part in judicial reviews that raise issues of wide public importance and impact on the lives of their members or beneficiaries. Such organisations will be forced to pay some of the legal costs of the other parties, regardless of the importance of the issue at stake or the value the organisation would add. Again, in many cases, this change will simply prevent interventions, no matter how much they may assist the court.
  • Enable public bodies to go unchallenged where they can persuade a court that, despite having made a decision unlawfully or unfairly, it is highly likely that they would have come to the same decision had they acted lawfully. This will allow public bodies to ‘get away with’ unfairness even where the outcome might have been different had it acted fairly. It will undermine good decision-making.
  • Allow the Government to define what is in the public interest, rather than allowing the independent courts to consider whether the lawfulness of an issue needs to be determined. This could mean that where the Government is involved in litigation, it will be able to argue that it is not in the public interest for its decision to be scrutinised, regardless of the importance of the issue, how many people are affected by it, or how unfair it is.  

What you can do to stop the Bill from undermining judicial review 

  1. Write to your MP. It is vital that MPs realise what the Government is trying to do to judicial review. Write to your representative and urge them to challenge the Bill. Explain to your MP why judicial review matters.
  2. Tell your members. It is important that everyone understands that the Government is trying to prevent individuals, civil society and the courts from scrutinising and challenging the action it takes. Encourage your members to think about the times when they have been affected by the actions of a public body, whether it is a health service provider, school or transport service, and the importance of preserving their rights to hold such bodies to account.
    1. Disseminate this briefing using social media and ask organisations such as 38 Degrees to take up the campaign. This is not a niche legal issue: it goes to the heart of the balance of power between citizens and the state. 

PLP can provide you with a more detailed briefing paper, the text of a draft letter to your MP and/or with the proposed text of necessary amendments to the Bill.

For more information including the draft documents above, please visit our website at www.publiclawproject.org.uk

Alternatively you can contact Jo Hickman on j.hickman@publiclawproject.org.uk or Martha Spurrier on m.spurrier@publiclawproject.org.uk.

 Posted by Linda at 18:53  Tagged with: CIVIL SOCIETY BRIEFING PAPER, CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND COURTS BILL, Judicial Review, justic, undermining citizens right to hold Gov to account

Please Support DPAC

Subscribe to blog via email

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Recent Posts

  • Our response to Newton’s letter to The Guardian
  • DWP Deaths Make Me Sick Shrouds Seen In Parliament
  • Look at what the Germans are doing about the sanction regime. Could we do the same in the UK?
  • News from Disability News Service 14th Feb
  • Please help Inclusion London with research into effects of the Welfare Reform Act (2016)
  • March 1st UC protest Peckham
  • Job Ad: Legal Advice Worker – Action Disability Kensington & Chelsea
  • Disability Confident, a disability Con.
  • News from Disability News Service for 7th Feb
  • Applications for research posts invited
  • Disability News Service news for 31st Jan
  • New DPAC Report on Universal Basic Income
  • Please help our research on charging for Social Care
  • What a few of our Local Groups did in 2018
  • Belated Round Up of 2018

DPAC on twitter @dis_ppl_protest

  • @Dis_PPL_Protest February 15, 2019

    DPAC Look at what the Germans are doing about the sanction regime. Could we do the same in the UK? dpac.uk.net/2019/02/look-a…

  • @Dis_PPL_Protest February 14, 2019

    DPAC YOU can prevent the DWP interfering in the patient/doctor’s relationship dpac.uk.net/2018/04/you-ca…

  • @Dis_PPL_Protest February 13, 2019

    DPAC will there be any jobs left? twitter.com/charlotteh71/s…

  • @Dis_PPL_Protest February 13, 2019

    DPAC love the banners twitter.com/socialactionin…

Pages

  • About
    • DPAC Policy Statement
  • Accessibility
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Disability Hate Crime
  • DPAC Logo and Copyright Notice
  • DPAC Stuff to buy
  • Guides
  • Home
  • Inclusive Education
  • Independent Living Fund
  • Join DPAC
  • Local DPAC Groups
  • Research

Categories

  • Access to Work
  • Action
  • All Posts
  • anti racism
  • Assisted Dying Bill
  • BBC
  • Bedroom tax
  • Benefits
  • charities
  • Climate change
  • council cuts
  • Disability Activism
  • disability hate crime
  • Disability History
  • Disability Rights
  • DisabilityCharityWatch
  • DLA
  • DPAC briefing notes
  • DPAC Reclaiming Our Futures Action
  • DPAC Research
  • DRUK
  • DWP
  • ESA
  • Europe
  • European Network on Independent Living (ENIL)
  • Events
  • fuel poverty
  • Humour
  • ILF
  • ILF Diaries
  • Inclusive Education
  • Independent Living
  • Independent Living Fund ILF
  • international
  • Job Centres
  • Legal aid
  • legal challenges
  • Letters
  • local authority cuts
  • local groups
  • Maximus
  • media
  • Mental Health
  • MHRN
  • News
    • Atos
  • NHS
  • OCAP
  • PIP
  • Politics
  • professional oppression
  • reclaiming our furtures
  • Reclaiming our Futures
  • Resources
  • sanctions
  • Social Model
  • Speeches
  • transport
  • UK Disabled Peoples Manifesto Reclaiming our Futures
  • Uncategorized
  • UNCRPD
  • Universal Credit
  • UNUM
  • WCA
  • welfare cuts
  • Welfare reforms
  • Who2Vote4?
  • workfare
  • write to your local councillor
  • Write to your MP

Links

  • ALLFIE fighting for Inclusive Education
  • Black Triangle
  • Boycott Workfare
  • Disability Crime Network
  • Disability Sanctuary Forum for peer support
  • DPAC Archive Blog
  • EDGE Fund
  • ENIL European Network on Independent Living
  • FrameworkInclusion.UK
  • Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People (GMCDP)
  • Help for Litigants in Person
  • ilfaction
  • Inclusion London
  • John Pring's Disability News Service
  • Keep Our NHS Public
  • Kingqueen's Political Musings
  • Left link directory useful resources for activists
  • Mental Health Resistance Network (MHRN) Face Book
  • MyLegal Forum
  • New Approach
  • Reclaiming our Futures Alliance
  • Right to Work Campaign
  • SamPB
  • Sisters of Frida
  • The Full Facts
  • The Void
  • Wow Petition

Categories

Archives

  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • December 2010

SIte Admin

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org
Website and content Copyright © 2010-2017 DPAC Hosting & support - S6 Connect Ltd Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish.Accept Reject Read More
Privacy & Cookies Policy