Key Facts

• Mark Hendrick (Preston) is chairing the Committee meeting.
• Witnesses include Sir Stephen Laws, Professor Jason Varuhas, and Professor Richard Ekins.
• The oral evidence session on Tuesday 2 November runs from 9:30 am to 10:25 am.
• Concerns raised about judicial review cases like Adams, which undermine established legal doctrines.
• Professor Ekins and Sir Stephen Laws endorse the need to reverse problematic judgments like Adams.
• Suspended quashing orders are part of the Bill's provisions aimed at prompting Parliament to intervene in controversial constitutional interpretations.
• Professor Ekins discusses the need for a response to significant Supreme Court judgments.
• Andrew Slaughter questions if the Bill’s measures should be a tit-for-tat response.
• Sir Stephen Laws mentions the need to distinguish between judicial review of legislative actions and system management issues.
• The IRAL report identified problematic areas where courts may exceed their institutional limits.
• Parliament has legislative authority over judicial review and can respond to specific court judgments.
• The Senior Courts Act 1981 established modern judicial review machinery.
• The press release accompanying the Bill's introduction indicated an intent to replicate the legal text in other legislation.
• Clause 2 aims to limit the review of decisions made by the upper tribunal with safeguards in place.
• Professor Ekins believes that clause 2 will be seen as constitutionally acceptable and effective.
• The Judicial Review and Courts Bill derives from recommendations of the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL).
• Former Law Lords Lord Hope and Lord Carnwath support the policy.
• Clause 2(4) retains a pathway for serious cases of unlawfulness to be addressed in the High Court.
• Mark Hendrick acknowledges the consensus on the importance of upholding parliamentary sovereignty.
• He mentions concerns about judicial review cases undermining established principles.
• Hendrick expresses the need to balance individual protection with political activity considerations.
• The statement introduces a new panel of witnesses.
• Dr Jonathan Morgan and Professor David Feldman are from the University of Cambridge.
• They will provide oral evidence for approximately one hour.
• Professor Feldman is an emeritus Rouse Ball professor of English law at the University of Cambridge.
• Dr Jonathan Morgan is a reader in English law at the University of Cambridge.
• Clause 1 of the Bill is welcomed but needs significant amendments according to some witnesses.
• Professor Feldman discusses the distinction between quashing orders and declarations.
• Clause 1 aims to clarify the courts' discretion to grant remedies with limited retrospective impact.
• Concerns are raised about potential unjust outcomes for individuals already impacted by unlawful decisions.
• Dr Morgan teaches contract and property law.
• Proposed new section 29A(2) states that an order “may be made subject to conditions.”
• Professor Feldman agrees with Dr Morgan's suggestion but adds that compensation may not be adequate for all claimants, especially in cases of deportation or other irreversible administrative wrongs.
• Professor Feldman notes parliamentary sovereignty requires access to courts to determine lawfulness of actions.
• The success rate of cases affected by the exclusion clause is estimated at around 3.4% compared to 30%-50% in other judicial review situations.
• Dr Morgan agrees that while the exclusion clause works for Cart, it may not work as a template for other statutes due to contextual differences.
• Mark Hendrick asks Professor Feldman for comments on suspended quashing orders.
• The Bill proposes allowing courts to give public bodies a period to rectify unlawful actions before striking them down.
• This could cause serious problems for specific claimants, particularly in cases involving immigration and asylum.
• The speaker notes that sometimes Cart reviews succeed in correcting High Court errors or resolving serious case issues.
• Success rates of Cart judicial reviews are cited at around 3.5%, with some cases involving legal technicalities but many having substantive merit.
• There is reference to a historical context where successive governments have aimed to address resource allocation for immigration and asylum challenges.