Amendments to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill aimed at protecting charities from increased costs in judicial review cases did not gain traction in the House of Commons yesterday.
The Criminal Justice and Courts Bill looks set to bring in changes to the judicial review process which charities fear could discourage them from intervening on behalf of beneficiaries.
At times, the voluntary sector intervenes, or gives evidence at judicial review where they feel they are best placed experience-wise. Currently, there is a presumption that the ‘intervener’ bears its own costs. The government now plans to change the presumption so interveners bear the costs of other parties in an intervention.
Speaking to civilsociety.co.uk in February, Melanie Carter, head of the public and regulatory law team at Bates Wells Braithwaite, said: “In one fell swoop this stops everyone except for the largest interveners,” she said.
“Government is discouraging the voluntary sector from intervening in judicial reviews by increasing the cost burden.”
The Criminal Justice and Courts Bill is currently at committee stage.
Shadow justice secretary Andy Slaughter had tabled amendments to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill which he hoped would protect charities from increased costs in judicial review cases by giving courts more discretion to decide who should pay full intervener costs.
But the amendment was not voted through. Conservative MPs voted against it and Liberal Democrats either voted with government or abstained.
In an unusual twist, Liberal Democrat MP Dr Julian Huppert tabled a similar amendment to Slaughter, but withdrew it after ministers said it would consider concerns at a later stage.
Slaughter then tabled the Liberal Democrat amendment. Liberal Democrats abstained when it was put to vote.
Commenting on the Bill, Andy Slaughter said: "In combination with the cuts to legal aid, these proposals for judicial review represent the most sustained attack on access to justice yet. This bill only benefits the government and those who would seek to stifle dissent, rather than hear arguments in open court.
“It is ironic that Grayling should be throwing a party for the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta when he seeks daily to undermine its most lasting legacy, enshrining the rule of law into our constitution.
“This bill further limits the rights of the citizen against the state and launches another attack on civil society.
“It is incredible that the government are pressing on with these changes despite near total condemnation from legal experts, charities and other campaigning bodies whose ability to assist the court by intervening in judicial review proceedings will become unaffordable if the bill passes. We voted against each clause that aimed to narrow the power to bring judicial review as we believe they will have a chilling effect on challenging poor government decision-making."
The bill will have another hearing at committee stage on 1 April.
