Key Facts

• Colleagues expressed gratitude for the adjournment of Committee proceedings to attend Sir David Amess's funeral.
• Andrew Rosindell was particularly close to Sir David Amess.
• The funeral service was described as a fitting farewell by multiple MPs.
• Amendment 30 would prevent any Act resulting from this Bill from coming into force until the Lord Chancellor confirms no provision contravenes Article 6 or Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
• The Lord Chancellor will be required to lay a written statement before Parliament within three months of the Bill being passed.
• The Government has already conducted a full ECHR analysis and published a memo for the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
• Some measures in the Bill will come into force two months from when the Act is passed.
• The remainder of the Bill's provisions will come into force by regulation.
• The clause amends Section 67 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
• It restricts the supervisory jurisdiction of courts over decisions made by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.
• Only certain questions, such as whether the Tribunal had a valid case before it or acted in bad faith, are exempt from this restriction.
• The new clause aims to reverse the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Privacy International case.
• Section 67 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 was previously understood as an ouster clause excluding judicial review for 19 years until recent court judgments.
• The former Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland, critiqued similar cases including Evans and highlighted Parliament’s role in making lawful decisions.
• The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (John Hayes) proposed two new clauses on judicial review.
• These new clauses were tabled at a very late stage, leaving no time for substantial parliamentary engagement or consideration of their merits.
• Andrew Slaughter emphasizes that any constitutional changes should be debated with wide consultation beforehand.
• Andrew Slaughter is discussing new clause 3 of the Judicial Review and Courts Bill.
• New clause 3 seeks to exclude judicial review of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal except under limited exceptions such as bad faith, fundamental procedural defect, or improper case constitution.
• John Hayes corrects Slaughter by noting that existing legislation allows challenging the tribunal on a point of law.
• The new clause aims to restrict judicial review in relation to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.
• Judicial review is seen as an incentive for public bodies to maintain high standards in decision making.
• In the Privacy International case, the Supreme Court found it difficult for the Government to completely close off judicial review concerning decisions of the IPT.
• The new clause would amend section 67 by replacing wording in subsection (8) and adding three additional subsections.
• A 2019 judgment from the UK Supreme Court found that the ouster clause of limited effect did not wholly oust the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction.
• The Government has consulted on options to clarify the interpretation of ouster clauses but decided it may muddy the waters further.
• The Bill focuses on tackling Cart JRs and remedial flexibility issues.
• There is a judicial backlog impacting resource implications.
• Careful thought should be given before proposing an ouster clause.
• The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 was proposed with extensive pre-legislative scrutiny.
• Lord Murphy led detailed scrutiny of the Bill before it became law.
• The Attorney General stated that the Supreme Court’s judgment in Privacy International deprived legislation of its proper meaning, which is considered 'profoundly troubling'.
• New Clause 5 aims to address concerns about creeping judge-made law and limit oral evidence and disclosure of information by public bodies.
• The proposed new clause aims to limit evidence testing and fact disputes in judicial reviews.
• Subsection (2) addresses the problem of forcing public bodies to disclose information even when judicial review is not permitted by law.
• The Human Rights Act 1998 has influenced the application of judicial review, leading to broader debates beyond its original legal intent.
• New clause 5 restricts disclosure by public bodies in judicial review proceedings.
• The current test for disclosure is whether evidence is necessary to resolve a case fairly and justly.
• Oral evidence is rarely used but can be crucial for resolving cases fairly.
• The current form of judicial review works because parties are subject to a duty of candour.
• Subsection (2) would enable public authorities to disapply the evidential duties, including the duty of candour.
• Compliance with the duty of candour is very important as it helps resolve matters efficiently and effectively.
• Oral evidence is already rarely used in judicial review proceedings.
• Judges retain discretion to permit oral evidence when it is essential to the case.
• New clause 5 would prevent courts from ordering disclosure of evidence unless absolutely necessary.
• New clause 5 aims to remove the court's ability to permit oral evidence unless there are compelling reasons.
• It seeks to prevent courts from ordering public authorities to disclose evidence without compelling reasons.
• In cases of non-justiciability, it would remove evidential requirements on public authorities until justiciability is ruled upon.
• The statement discusses New Clause 10 which aims to provide publicly funded legal representation for bereaved individuals in certain inquests involving public authorities.
• Andrew Rosindell thanked colleagues and acknowledged differences with the Minister over the core issues of the Bill but noted some improvements made within amendments.
• Sir David Amess's memorial service was held earlier that morning.
• The MP acknowledges the dual chairmanship by Sir Mark.
• Thanks are extended to Clerks, officials, and Doorkeepers for their support.
• The Committee has moved the Bill through to its next stage.