Key Facts

• Amendment 42 aims to ensure exceptions apply to any bad faith or fundamental breach of natural justice.
• Amendment 44 provides definitions and conditions related to legal representation, age/capacity, in-country appeals, and accelerated procedures.
• Both amendments are contingent on other proposed amendments.
• The figure is about 3.4% of Cart judicial reviews result in a successful outcome for claimants.
• The amendments would make the upper tribunal subject to judicial review where it has made a true jurisdictional error or evidence of bad faith or a fundamental breach of natural justice.
• The Government believes including decisions from the first-tier tribunal is unnecessary as judges of the upper tribunal are capable of identifying blatant and serious errors.
• Cart judicial reviews occur an average of 750 times a year since the Cart judgment.
• Lord Hope of Craighead stated that the decision has not worked as intended.
• Claimants succeed in Cart judicial reviews about 3.4% of the time, compared to 30-50% for general judicial reviews.
• The average case takes 88 days from court filing to conclusion.
• Clause 2 addresses concerns about the excessive use of judicial review in immigration cases.
• Ninety-five percent of these cases are immigration cases.
• The clause applies only where there is a valid application for permission to appeal from the first-tier tribunal.
• Two additional exceptions have been added to improve the 'safety valve' aspect of the ouster clause.
• Cart JR cases are alleged to have a negative impact on the court system.
• Success rate for Cart JR cases is estimated at 0.6%, 3% or 5% compared to 40%-50% for other judicial review cases.
• There are approximately 750 such cases annually, costing £400,000.
• The Cart decision by the Supreme Court in 2011 opened a new avenue for judicial review.
• Around 750 Cart judicial review cases were brought annually between 2016 and 2019, with only about 3% being successful.
• Professor Ekins authored a report on this subject through Policy Exchange.
• Clause 2 is debated for its impact on judicial review cases.
• Only 3% of Cart cases are successful out of about 750 cases.
• There is a Crown court backlog of approximately 60,000 cases.
• The MP argues that Cart JRs are not about having a 'third bite at the cherry.'
• Justice states that few Cart JRs would be successful but those that are would involve serious errors of law.
• Professor Feldman notes parliamentary sovereignty and rule of law require access to courts for determining lawfulness.
• The statement emphasizes the importance of correcting decisions with significant consequences for individuals or society.
• Andrew Slaughter mentions a consultation response indicating that even a single case can have wide ramifications, questioning why this principle does not apply in Cart cases.
• There is opposition to the clause in the Judicial Review and Courts Bill unless specific issues are adequately addressed by the Government.
• The clause discussed would take away the right for an individual to ask for a judicial review after an upper tribunal refuses permission to appeal.
• In the past week, arguments have been made about how powerful MPs should have more opportunities to plead their case, yet this measure removes such rights from less powerful individuals.
• The Immigration Law Practitioners Association compiled 57 real-life cases where people relied on judicial review for critical decisions like access to life-saving treatment or avoiding deportation that could endanger them.
• The Government's claim of a high volume of applications versus successful outcomes is questioned, with evidence suggesting the success rate is at least 15 times higher than claimed by the Government.
• The measure would save only about £400,000 per year according to official assessments.
• Anne McLaughlin presents examples of cases where judicial review was crucial in ensuring justice for individuals, including a Venezuelan man and a Ugandan lesbian refugee.
• The Cart JR allowed the overturning of decisions by lower tribunals in cases involving family life rights and diaspora activities.
• Without Cart JR, one Sri Lankan national would have faced deportation and persecution.
• Anne McLaughlin states that over 97% of cases fail in immigration judicial reviews.
• The bill affects all four chambers of the upper tribunal.
• Currently, 16% of the working-age population live with a disability and this rises to 45% for adults over state pension age.
• Ouster clauses put decisions beyond the reach of the court.
• The Government previously backed down on proposals to include ouster clauses in the Bill after an outcry.
• The Law Society of England and Wales warns that ouster clauses reduce legal accountability and prevent individuals from securing a remedy.
• Professor Feldman admitted that using Cart in 96.6% of cases is a disproportionate use of resources.
• The speaker mentions that legal representatives are advising their clients to pursue judicial review despite high failure rates.
• The debate includes discussions on the number of days it takes for High Court judges to deal with immigration cases.
• Labour's Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 included a widely drafted ouster clause.
• The Bill aims to move more cases from the Crown court to magistrates courts, freeing up 400 sitting days.
• Clause 10 in the Bill moves cases to reduce pressure on the Crown court and free up 580 sitting days total.
• The sitting was adjourned till the same day at Two o’clock.