Key Facts

• Richard Leiper QC is a specialist in employment law and chair of the advisory council for the litigant in person support strategy.
• André Rebello OBE is the senior coroner for Liverpool and Wirral and honorary secretary of the Coroners’ Society of England and Wales.
• Over 95% of inquests are heard by coroners sitting alone, highlighting their enabling role in these inquiries.
• The online rule committee would set rules applicable to employment tribunals, first-tier tribunals, civil proceedings, and family proceedings.
• The current composition of the committee is only six people compared to 18 members in other committees like civil procedure and family law.
• Leiper suggests a wider composition akin to existing rule committees with more judges and practitioners.
• Remote hearings did not apply to coroners’ courts during coronavirus easements.
• Rule 17 of the inquest rules allows evidence from overseas witnesses.
• Section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 prohibits broadcasting from coroner’s courts.
• The Coronavirus Act 2020's sunset clause expires in March next year.
• Currently, doctors can see a patient within 28 days of death or the body after death under coronavirus easements.
• There are concerns that without these easements, more cases will be unnecessarily reported to coroners.
• At present, about 20% to 30% of deaths being reported do not need to be.
• Sara Lomri from the Public Law Project testified that the changes proposed in the Bill are not justified due to a lack of evidential basis.
• Around 4,000 applications for judicial review are issued annually in the UK.
• Only approximately one-third of those cases proceed to trial.
• The proposal for prospective-only quashing orders is considered a drastic new suggestion that was not part of the independent review recommendations.
• Public Law Project estimates the success rate of Cart reviews to be around 5.7%.
• There is concern about the potential cost savings cited by IRAL being incorrect and amounting to £364,000 per year.
• Concerns are raised over whether the Bill is necessary given the judiciary's existing powers.
• The MP argues that adding new provisions could increase legal costs and make judicial review more complex and less accessible.
• Reference is made to comments from the Attorney General and Lord Sumption regarding politicisation of judicial review.
• There are around 4,000 applications for judicial review every year.
• About 1,000 cases reach trial annually.
• Cart JR is available outside of immigration and was initially about varying child support decisions.
• IRAL claims a success rate of 0.22% for Cart cases.
• Government revised figure ranges from 3% to 10%, with the Public Law Project's data indicating 5.7%.
• The Bill includes provisions for online procedure rules committees (clauses 18 to 31).
• There are concerns about digital exclusion and blurring between digital assistance and independent legal advice.
• Witnesses introduced: Steve Valdez-Symonds, Stephanie Needleman, Louise Finer.
• Steve Valdez-Symonds is the refugee and migrant rights programme director at Amnesty International UK.
• Stephanie Needleman is the acting legal director at Justice, an all-party law reform and human rights organisation.
• Stephanie Needleman is from an organisation supporting families through the inquest system.
• Clause 6 and clause 8 in the Bill are concerned with online pleas for adults and children respectively.
• There are concerns about bypassing existing protections for vulnerable groups like children within the criminal justice system.
• Research shows that women, ethnic minorities, and individuals with mental health conditions or neurodivergent conditions may be disproportionately affected by the automatic online conviction process.
• John Hayes reads out a recent judgment expressing concerns over challenges to legislation based on discrimination.
• The Supreme Court has set clear direction regarding proportionality for lower courts.
• Former Attorney General and senior lawyers have expressed concerns about the current approach to judicial review.
• Concerns are raised about clauses 37 and 38 potentially leading to discontinuance of inquests.
• Clause 39 proposes increased use of remote procedures for coroners' courts, which Louise Finer views as a significant risk.
• Families supported by Inquest have largely negative impressions of remote hearings.
• The discussion involves several questioners addressing issues related to the Judicial Review and Courts Bill.
• Steve Valdez-Symonds uses the term 'tyranny' in reference to government interference in judicial functions, particularly concerning clauses in other legislation like the Nationality and Borders Bill.
• The Lord Chancellor has significant powers over online procedure rules.
• Suspended-only quashing orders are supported by Justice for clarification after the Ahmed case.
• Prospective-only quashing orders do not have retrospective effect and are opposed due to concerns about undermining judicial review.
• Dr Joe Tomlinson studies public law with an interest in empirical studies of judicial review.
• There are around a few thousand ordinary judicial review cases per year, while immigration judicial review cases have been decreasing recently.
• The success rate for Cart reviews is not as low as initially suggested by the IRAL's figure of 0.22%, and it could be closer to 3.4% with a narrow definition or higher with a wider definition.
• Professor Feldman stated that non-immigration-related judicial reviews have a success rate over 50%.
• Dr Tomlinson explained that many judicial reviews settle before reaching full hearing, potentially skewing the success rate figures.
• Cart judicial reviews challenge decisions made by judges and are distinct from administrative decision challenges.
• Michael Clancy mentions that in Scotland, there are only about 100 judicial reviews per year compared to England.
• Dr Caroline Johnson raises concerns over erroneous judgments, citing figures ranging from 0.2% to 5%.
• Transform Justice briefs mention concerns about online pleas compromising open justice principles.
• The provisions of clause 2 engage the Sewel convention, requiring consent from the Scottish Parliament.
• Section 126(4) of the Scotland Act 1998 defines judicial review as part of Scottish private law.
• New clause 11A(5) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 provides that an Act of the Scottish Parliament can modify rules of judicial review if they are not special to a reserved matter.
• Clause 1 potentially leaves individuals without a remedy in their cases.
• Clause 1 may create significant uncertainty that could generate further litigation.
• Clause 2 includes an ouster clause which raises questions about its use by Parliament.
• The cost of Cart judicial review cases is around £364,000 per year according to the Ministry of Justice figures.
• The success rate for Cart judicial reviews is roughly one-in-twenty.
• Witnesses contributed insights into the efficiency of remote courts in public law and employment cases.
• The MP acknowledges the importance of digital access and open justice.
• Remote court proceedings are seen as a positive development.