Judicial Review and Courts Bill - Not specified in the given text, overall bill discussion

Cherry questioned whether there was an evidential basis for changing judicial review procedures in Scotland, given that no such issues have been identified north of the border. She also raised concerns about devolution and promised assurances by Raab's predecessor.

Abrahams pointed out that judicial review has been a crucial mechanism for social security claimants to seek justice, raising questions about which cases would still be permissible under this Bill.

Cash supported Raab's stance on quashing orders and questioned the wisdom of allowing courts to quash Acts of Parliament as seen in the Factortame case.

Neill asked for assurances that litigants who suffer tangible loss due to quashing orders would not be left without remedies. He also noted Raab's absence from recent justice debates.

Dhesi criticised prioritising judicial review reforms during a pandemic, highlighting delays in delivering justice for victims of rape and other crimes.

Foxcroft raised concerns about access to legal representation for bereaved families involved with coroner services, questioning if public funding would improve this situation.

Seely supported DNA sampling for people buried at sea to speed up identification processes in coroner investigations, enhancing efficiency.

De Cordova questioned how digitisation would ensure equal access for all communities, including those with less technological means.

Carter thanked magistrates for their work in reducing delays and suggested increasing sentencing powers as a way to further reduce backlogs in magistrates courts.

He argues that limiting quashing orders undermines judicial review, leaves victims without redress, and reduces accountability. He cites statistics on delayed Crown court cases and criticises the Government for prioritising constitutional changes over fixing urgent issues in the justice system.

She questions whether there should be a legislative consent motion given that clause 2 affects devolved matters and could create differences between reserved and devolved tribunals.

He urges the Government to amend the Bill to include automatic non-means-tested public funding for bereaved families involved in public functions, citing the Hillsborough disaster as an example of the importance of judicial review.

He references a former Labour Home Secretary’s criticism of judges usurping Parliament, suggesting that the Government's position is aligned with maintaining parliamentary authority.

She argues that a mature democracy protects the marginalised and vulnerable and criticises the Government for misunderstanding this point.

He supports the argument that the consequences of failing a judicial review must be carefully considered, highlighting potential negative impacts on individuals even if success rates are low.

She cites Lord Hope’s comments supporting the abolition of Cart-type judicial reviews and questions the effectiveness of the current system based on these views.

He criticises the disparity between large legal spend by hospital authorities defending themselves against individual litigants unable to access legal aid, highlighting inequality in the justice system.

She emphasises the need for a robust legal aid system that protects families seeking answers after losing loved ones to public functions, advocating for automatic non-means-tested funding.

Neill supports the bill, arguing it is a measured and tightly focused one. He believes judicial review reforms proposed in the bill are sensible and do not constitute an assault on judicial review. Neill cites Lord Faulks's independent panel report as evidence that the reforms are necessary to address perceived issues with Cart reviews and joint enterprise manslaughter cases. He also supports provisions for suspended quashing orders, provided they ensure individuals who suffer tangible loss due to impugned decisions have a meaningful remedy. Additionally, he discusses criminal procedure modernisation, highlighting the need for safeguards when moving from in-person proceedings to written procedures.

Cherry challenges Neill's assertion that the Bill is in line with Bingham rule-of-law principles. She refers to a detailed briefing by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, which argues that clauses 1 and 2 do not align with these principles and should be removed from the bill.

She argues that the removal of Cart-type judicial reviews could affect access to vital benefits for people with disabilities and those facing destitution. She also highlights a case involving an asylum seeker who was saved from deportation through judicial review, emphasising how such reviews serve as a last line of defence.

Crawley supports McLaughlin's argument by highlighting the role of judicial review in holding the Government accountable for policies like tribunal fees, which previously required individuals to pay significant sums for access to justice.

Jeremy Wright argues that judicial review is vital for maintaining constitutional balance, ensuring Government decisions are lawful, enhancing effectiveness by making them more acceptable to those subject to them. He supports judicial review's practical benefits in improving decision-making retrospectively and prospectively. However, he expresses concerns over proposed changes, particularly clause 2 which seeks to exclude further appeals, potentially undermining parliamentary sovereignty. Wright also highlights issues with clause 1 regarding the removal or limitation of retrospective effect of quashing an unlawful decision, suggesting it may cause significant detriment to those affected by such decisions.

The amendment undermines judicial review, particularly in cases involving immigration, asylum seekers, and access to benefits for disabled individuals. It removes a vital safeguard that allows the judiciary to correct mistakes made by tribunals, which often involve high stakes for those involved. The Bill should be opposed as it goes against principles of government accountability.

Supports the Bill and its streamlining of the judicial system in England and Wales, focusing on improvements to family court proceedings introduced by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. However, she raises concerns about Natalie Davies' experience in the family court which was deemed 'unacceptable'. The constituent's case highlights issues with the complaints process for judges.

Supports excluding upper-tribunal permission decisions from judicial review. Argues that difficult immigration or asylum cases will still go to the appeal courts, but only if they meet the threshold of being reasonably arguable at each stage before reaching the High Court for judicial review. The clause aims to prevent applicants having three bites of the cherry in seeking recourse through different means, and aligns with Supreme Court justices' nuanced views on the matter.

Questions Laura Farris's interpretation of clause 2, suggesting it effectively orders judges to have a presumption in favour of prospective rather than retrospective quashing orders. Concerned that this would limit judicial discretion and potentially affect human rights cases.

Rob Butler supports the changes proposed in the Courts Bill for magistrates and youth courts, highlighting their balance and sensibility. He notes improvements such as digitising preliminary pretrial court proceedings via the common platform, removing unnecessary courtroom hearings, and strengthening links between Crown Court and magistrates courts. Additionally, he welcomes measures to allow defendants to submit written pleas online, streamlining processes and reducing delays. Butler also highlights the importance of safeguards ensuring defendants receive appropriate support when making decisions outside of a courthouse setting.

Welcomes debate on judicial review and court capacity, acknowledges efforts to maintain justice system during pandemic. Points out that pre-pandemic backlogs were higher under Labour government. Emphasises need for investment alongside reform to address backlog issues. Raises concerns over potential negative impacts of remote hearings on vulnerable groups. Questions effectiveness of current judicial review processes and suggests balancing use of public resources in courts.

Supports sensible aspects of the Bill, particularly those aimed at improving efficiency in coroners' work. Advocates for mandatory DNA sampling before burial at sea to help identify bodies washed up on coastlines and reduce unnecessary police and coroner time spent investigating. Argues that this measure would prevent emotional distress for families and save public resources.

The primary concern is that the Bill seeks to undermine individual rights against the state, despite the justice system facing significant backlogs and crises in areas such as rape prosecutions and access to legal aid. The proposal weakens judicial review and removes retrospective effects from quashing orders, which will have a chilling effect on those seeking remedies for past unlawful actions.

The Minister argues that the clause is necessary to strengthen judicial review by enabling courts to act prospectively, protecting past reliance on licences or actions in good faith. He supports removing unnecessary Cart judicial reviews and digitising court procedures for efficiency. He also emphasises the need for safeguards for vulnerable users during online processes.

Intervened to clarify that a similar measure in 2004 was never enacted, suggesting caution with the current proposal. His view is critical of the government's approach to judicial review reforms.

Asked about the potential impact of clause 2 on Scottish law and governance, suggesting that if it affects reserved matters as proposed by Labour, a legislative consent motion would be necessary.