“Convenient but Unconvincing”: Neuberger criticises Judicial Review and Courts Bill
November 12, 2021
3 min read
What's going on here?
Lord Neuberger, former president of the Supreme Court, has criticised proposals included in the Judicial Review and Courts Bill. He declared, at Public Law Project’s annual conference, that “the argument that the government is concerned to protect judges from being criticised for being political is a convenient but unconvincing argument.”
What does this mean?
What's the big picture effect?
These reforms will limit the degree to which claimants can use the judicial system to challenge the behaviour and decisions of public bodies. They will result in suspended quashing orders being made in cases where, in the past, quashing orders would have been made that would have been implemented immediately. The reforms will also limit an individual’s ability to appeal a case: the Upper Tribunal’s refusal to hear an appeal will be final.
Reactions to the Bill have been diverse. Lord Neuberger has expressed his criticism of the reforms, saying that it was “always worth remembering” that judicial review “is what ensures that the executive arm of government keeps to the law and that individual rights are protected”’. He argued that “ouster clauses, which are intended to ensure a particular class of decision cannot be judicially reviewed, carry with them the inevitable implication that whoever has the protection of the ouster clause has the right to break the law with impunity”. However, the Attorney General, the Rt Hon Suella Braverman QC MP, has defended the government’s reforms. She spoke at Public Law Project’s annual conference, saying that it is “crucially important that we neither permit, facilitate or encourage judicial review to be used as a political tool by those who have already lost the arguments”.
Braverman argued that the legitimacy and reputation of the judiciary is inextricably linked to its neutrality when it comes to politics. So, will these reforms help to protect the authority of our legal system, or will they simply grant public bodies greater freedom to act as they wish, by reducing the threat of legal consequences?
Report written by Elizabeth Ambrose
Share this now!
Check out our recent reports!
iSad: Apple overtaken as world’s most valuable company
Chip on Your Shoulder: The US’ struggle to keep down Chinese semiconductors
Not-so-perfect Pair: Adidas sports bra ads banned for nudity
A Woe for Abortion Rights: US Supreme Court’s opinion to overturn Roe v Wade causes upheaval
LittleLaw Looks At… working in London offices compared to regional offices