Good Law Project Limited

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Sluffy, the question I’m asking you is *specifically* what bill is going through to close the loophole/change the law? I am asking out of interest not to have a row with you.

The Judicial Review and Courts Bill

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3035

Judicial review: Plan to reform scrutiny by courts revealed

The government is pressing ahead with plans to limit how the public can legally challenge official decisions, despite fears it will damage justice.

The Ministry of Justice says its legislation to reform judicial review will save money and court time.

...critics of judicial review say the wide-ranging right to bring cases has led judges to go beyond their role in upholding the law and into taking political decisions that should be left to Parliament.

Under the proposals, ministers say reforms will prevent the courts from being abused and give judges new powers over how they implement decisions that go against the government.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57909168

Interesting you only quote the government and not the law society's comment on that bill isn't it?

Taken from the same article:

Stephanie Boyce, president of the Law Society, which represents solicitors, said that while ministers appeared to have heeded some concerns, the proposals could still weaken checks and balances on power.

"There is a great deal here that should ring alarm bells for people who come up against the might of the state," she said.

"Removing or limiting the retrospective effect of an order would mean that nobody who has been a victim of an unlawful state action - not even the person who brought the challenge - would benefit from a ruling that the government had behaved unlawfully.

"This would have a chilling effect on justice."

No wonder Auntie Sharon doesn't want owt to do wi' social media.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Interesting you only quote the government and not the law society's comment on that bill isn't it?

Taken from the same article:

Stephanie Boyce, president of the Law Society, which represents solicitors, said that while ministers appeared to have heeded some concerns, the proposals could still weaken checks and balances on power.

"There is a great deal here that should ring alarm bells for people who come up against the might of the state," she said.

"Removing or limiting the retrospective effect of an order would mean that nobody who has been a victim of an unlawful state action - not even the person who brought the challenge - would benefit from a ruling that the government had behaved unlawfully.

"This would have a chilling effect on justice."

You asked ME what my analogy was aimed at -

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Thanks but I know about the VAR changes, I asked you which change in law your analogy is aimed at?

I answered your question exactly with that in mind and with the relevant parts of the article to explain it even further.

I hid nothing but clearly you just want to continue the argument on - you always do...!

A person so politically activated such as yourself should know (but your knowledge of how the state works has been utterly woeful up to now) that Bills such as this go through many stages before it is voted (or not) into law.

The concerns of Ms Boyce may well have been dealt to her and the Law Society's utmost satisfaction by now and if not there's still many opportunities for debate and amendments to be made - so neither she nor you should be getting your knickers in a twist just yet.

The bottom line in all this don't forget is that if Maughan et al weren't trying to manipulate the use of JR's for something they are not intended for - then there would have been no need for a Bill to close the loophole would there?

You’ve just highlighted how little you understand this.

‘The bottom line in all this don't forget is that if Maughan et al weren't trying to manipulate the use of JR's for something they are not intended for - then there would have been no need for a Bill to close the loophole would there?’

That suggests definitively that the government’s claim that JR’s are being abused is proven to be accurate.

Show me a quote from a legal expert supporting that.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:You’ve just highlighted how little you understand this.

‘The bottom line in all this don't forget is that if Maughan et al weren't trying to manipulate the use of JR's for something they are not intended for - then there would have been no need for a Bill to close the loophole would there?’

That suggests definitively that the government’s claim that JR’s are being abused is proven to be accurate.

Show me a quote from a legal expert supporting that.

I don't need to.

The system is the executive has the power to put law into action, Parliament the power to make the law and the judiciary judges on the law.

Legal experts are simply advisors and their advice can be heeded or rejected.

That's how it works - and you either simply just don't get it or you're in denial about it.

So you can’t quote any impartial experts supporting your claim that JRs are being abused.

Yet I’m supposed to take your word for it?

And you have the cheek to rattle on about only dealing in facts get over yourself lad.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:So you can’t quote any impartial experts supporting your claim that JRs are being abused.

Yet I’m supposed to take your word for it?

And you have the cheek to rattle on about only dealing in facts get over yourself lad.

I am dealing in facts - that's how the Constitution works.

You don't have to take my word for it - check it out for youself.

I was dropped jawed with your sheer ignorance of how the whole system works a year or so ago but now I just laugh at your continuing ignorance.  For one who seems so politically motivated you simply don't understand what you face in your endeavours to bring about change - and you obviously can't be arsed to find out - you're just political fodder basically not understanding the game at all.

You clearly pride yourself on arguing but to what end?

If you don't understand what you are arguing against then how can you ever hope to change it?

All the experts were on one side in respect of Brexit - little good did it do them though as they were on the losing side.  The experts in SAGE have been advising the government over Covid from day one - Whitty even publicly contradicted Boris go out and party message (and rightly so imo) but at the end of the day he's the expert and Boris is the one with the power.

If you don't know how the system works - and you clearly don't - nor ever intend to find out either - you will never change it even if you believe you know far, far more than a random old fart like me on a footy forum!

Nobody is arguing with how the system works.

I’m asking you for any supporting evidence that JR’s are being abused. If you can’t answer that then just say.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Nobody is arguing with how the system works.

I’m asking you for any supporting evidence that JR’s are being abused. If you can’t answer that then just say.

Hahaha!!!

Talk about clutching at straws!

It's simple.

If JR's aren't being abused there would be no reason to seek legislation to change them.

We've just seen 100 Conservative MP's defy the government and vote against it so it's not a given that the Bill would ever be passed if Parliament thought all this was some sort of muzzling of the judiciary exercise.

The Bill to Parliament was introduced by the then Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland.

The Lord Chancellor by law is responsible for the efficient functioning and independence of the courts.

Buckland is a QC and Master of the Bench, which basically means he's highly regarded within the legal profession.

These are HIS words when introducing the Bill to the House -

Robert Buckland, Lord Chancellor and justice secretary, said the Judicial Review and Courts Bill would create a better balance between the rights of citizens and effective government.

"The government has pledged to ensure that the courts are not open to abuse and delay," he said.

"Today we are delivering on that commitment. We are giving judges the powers they need to ensure the government is held to account, while tackling those who seek to frustrate the court process."

Now do you really, really think he is some sort of crazed nutjob intent on creating a "chilling effect on justice", that he is simply one of Johnson's lackeys?

You probably do but most reasonable people certainly don't and Buckland by all accounts is highly regarded amongst his peers in both the legal profession and Parliament.

If the Bill really is as contentious as you seem to think it is then it will simply not  be voted into law.

If it is voted into law then clearly there is perceived to be a need for it and as Buckland himself stated in Parliament that need is to stop the current abuse of the JR system.

Your impartial expert is Robert Buckland of the government .

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Your impartial expert is Robert Buckland of the government .

You clearly imply that everyone who is a member of a political party therefore can't be impartial - so must be biased

I believe you told us that you are a member of the Labour Party and so following your own logic are yourself biased in your judgements.

(I believe you totally are actually fwiw).

I doubt Buckland told Parliament what he did about the abuse of JR's simply because he's a Tory but I'm sure he did so because he knew it to be true.

How's your mate Maughan doing, you know the one you follow who is completely politically impartial.

The one abusing the JR system!

Tell me again that you haven't a side in all this.

So much for you having an impartial view on this then!!!

I’m claiming you’ve chosen someone with a political allegiance when I’ve asked you for an impartial expert supporting your view - you either don’t understand impartiality or don’t have one - but continue to keep digging.

If the system is being abused then find an equivalent of the Law society who agree with you. Or if you can’t find anyone - say that, and consider what it might mean.

Putting up Robert Buckland as your example of an impartial expert is laughable.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:I’m claiming you’ve chosen someone with a political allegiance when I’ve asked you for an impartial expert supporting your view - you either don’t understand impartiality or don’t have one - but continue to keep digging.

If the system is being abused then find an equivalent of the Law society who agree with you. Or if you can’t find anyone - say that, and consider what it might mean.

Putting up Robert Buckland as your example of an impartial expert is laughable.

Jesus you go round and round in circles all the time.

I thought you did this because you were just yanking my chain but I'm beginning to now think that you do it because you simply are stupid enough to believe it matters somehow for you to be right all the time - in the same sort of way Wanderlust clearly can't accept to be wrong in anyone's eyes.

At the end of the day the Law Society advises the government and no doubt lobbies and acts as a pressure group to it too but that's as far as it goes.

It's the government that issued this Bill and Parliaments task to discuss it, amend it, then vote on it.

If it's such a contentious issue and there is no need for JR's to be regulated as proposed in the Bill then it simply won't get through - even with the governments 78 seat majority - because Labour won't vote for it and we've just seen 100 Tory MP's defy their whip to vote against the government.

I'm getting the impression that you are turning in to somewhat of a drama queen - everything the Tory Party say or do is wrong and anybody who stand against them - Maughan, the Chair of the Law Society, is automatically right and must be listened to!

The system simply doesn't work like that.

If you don't like it then tough titty.

You can laugh and ridicule me as much as you please, chase me around to find you examples of this, that or the other but its all meaningless.

You might believe you've won the argument in your head - but you certainly haven't in real life - and it is real life that actually matters.

Maybe it's you that should be considering what this means - not me!

Again, I haven't made any comment on how the system works. That's now the fourth time you've tried to claim otherwise.

You've said the system is being abused, all I did was ask you for an impartial expert who shares your view. 

It's been 18 hours and you still can't answer the question. So what do you think that tells you?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Again, I haven't made any comment on how the system works. That's now the fourth time you've tried to claim otherwise.

You've said the system is being abused, all I did was ask you for an impartial expert who shares your view. 

It's been 18 hours and you still can't answer the question. So what do you think that tells you?

I'll tell you what it tells me and that is - that the system doesn't work that way!

I wouldn't expect the Union of High Court Judges or the Association of Privy Councillors to make comments in support because a) such bodies don't exist and b) because even if they did they KNOW the system doesn't work in that way.

I don't doubt for one second though that words have been said by high ranking members of the judiciary behind the scenes to the their legal colleges in Parliament about their concerns in the way JR's are started to be used/abused.

Look this isn't a one way process and just effects the Tory party you know, if the law isn't changed and Labour got into power they would face the same abuse of the JR's (this time from right wing nutters rather than the left wing nutters we have now) - and they won't want that either!

Labour might not be as hard against this as you may think.

Just because the President of the Supreme Court hasn't publicly spoken up for the Bill doesn't mean there's no support from the judiciary for it.

The Law Society when all said and done only represents solicitors they don't represent the barristers or the judges - and they can't act as the advocates or judges in JR cases.

Their chair may well have expressed her views - which you are obviously delighted to hear - but she and her colleagues aren't actually involved directly in JR's themselves!

And as for you've been waiting 18 hours - hahaha!

You've got the clock on me!!!!

You're getting as pathetic and as unintentionally funny as Wanderlust is!

I wasn't delighted, I think this government are unique in my lifetime as to their attacks on our civil liberties. 

Proroguing parliament, the policing bill, their plans for the human rights act and the nationality and borders bill - these are all dangerous steps and I see the one we're discussing here in line with this pattern of behaviour, a disregard for our democratic systems. 

If you don't that's fine, all im asking for is some evidence to support your claims this is being done in good faith. 

Suspect if i waited 180 hours you'd still be replying without any.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:I wasn't delighted, I think this government are unique in my lifetime as to their attacks on our civil liberties. 

Proroguing parliament, the policing bill, their plans for the human rights act and the nationality and borders bill - these are all dangerous steps and I see the one we're discussing here in line with this pattern of behaviour, a disregard for our democratic systems. 

If you don't that's fine, all im asking for is some evidence to support your claims this is being done in good faith. 

Suspect if i waited 180 hours you'd still be replying without any.

You can wait 180 years if you like and I'll still give you the same answers.

The way the system (the constitution) works is simply not the way you comprehend it does - judges don't make statements to the press, or go on Question Time or get asked to go the news to give interviews and comments - judges have to be SEEN to be impartial and non political.

They raise their concerns quietly in the corridors of power and out of sight.

Judges aren't idiots, they can see what's going on but they have to apply the law as set.  Have no doubt that they've raised their concerns independently of any political views and opinions the Tory party may have!

Think of the Law Society - despite its title - not actually representing the law.

It represents solicitors only - and even then not all of them share the same views.

Officially the Supporters Trust represents the views of BWFC supporters and as we've all seen they certainly don't speak for some of us - they probably don't speak for many of us in fact!

I'm sure the lady Chair of the Law Society means what see says - I'm sure you mean what you say - but is the comment she made her view or the officially debated and agreed view of the membership of the Law Society?

I suspect it's the former with some journalist simply phoning her up and asking for her comments on the proposed Bill - which she gave.

I would suspect 99.99% of the solicitors represented by the Law Society have absolutely no dealings at all with JR's - I was reading the other day there were 3,597 applications for JR's in 2018, that only 218 actually made it to court and the government won half of them.

3,600 people complained the government (or public body) had not administered the law properly and only 109 were found to be the case!

Same government in 2018 as there is now remember!

Maughan's probably applied for 3,600 JR's alone this year and he only needs to win one or two for muppets like you to believe the government totally corrupt and sleaze ridden.

Nobody thought it was just a year or so earlier before Maughan et al started using JR's in the way he has!

As for the Bills you mention above, how many have made it to Law yet?

My father used to have a saying that I well remember and it was 'scream when you are hurt and not before'.  What he meant by that is don't worry about things that haven't happened yet - and probably never will - at least in the way you expect it to.

If those Bills are so universally wrong they simply won't get through Parliament in that state.  At the end of the day the law and government is achieved through consent - that's why it might be the law to wear face masks in public but I didn't see too many people doing so in Tesco's this evening!

What's the point in trying to push unpopular Bills in to law - particularly following yesterdays by election.

Scream when you are hurt, and not before.

Wise words.

I haven’t asked you for a judges view on the bill - not sure why you keep trying to adjust what's being asked? 

Anyway, bit cheap to resort to undermining the evidence I’ve given you, but here are three more statements for you to completely ignore.

https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/en/campaigns/consultation-responses/independent-review-of-administrative-law-call-for-evidence-law-society-response

The Law Society said it did not believe that there was a need for fundamental reform of judicial review. This was because there was evidence that judicial review is “working well and achieving its purpose”

https://www.barcouncil.org.uk/uploads/assets/d0bf3966-9772-4205-81c63d3bb91cc188/Bar-Council-IRAL-response.pdf. 

The Bar Council of England and Wales rejected the suggestion in the call for evidence that there is a conflict between judicial review and the “proper and effective discharge of government functions”. To the contrary, it described judicial review as a “critical mechanism” for securing proper and effective government functions.

Lord Reed of Allermuir, the President of the Supreme Court,
‘In response to the Prime Minister’s proposals for a constitution commission to examine the role of judicial review, Lord Reed said:

Judges are very well aware of the risk of challenges being brought in what are political rather than legal grounds. They are repelling them and are careful to avoid straying into what are genuine political matters. When this is a matter that is to be considered it should not start from the premise that judges are eager to pronounce on political issues. The true position is actually quite the opposite.

As for your fathers advice, I don’t think waiting until the bill has been passed to protest it is a smart way to stop the bill being passed - the horse has bolted. I’m sure his advice stands up in plenty of other context but not sure what your logic is there.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:I haven’t asked you for a judges view on the bill - not sure why you keep trying to adjust what's being asked? 

Anyway, bit cheap to resort to undermining the evidence I’ve given you, but here are three more statements for you to completely ignore.

https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/en/campaigns/consultation-responses/independent-review-of-administrative-law-call-for-evidence-law-society-response

The Law Society said it did not believe that there was a need for fundamental reform of judicial review. This was because there was evidence that judicial review is “working well and achieving its purpose”

https://www.barcouncil.org.uk/uploads/assets/d0bf3966-9772-4205-81c63d3bb91cc188/Bar-Council-IRAL-response.pdf. 

The Bar Council of England and Wales rejected the suggestion in the call for evidence that there is a conflict between judicial review and the “proper and effective discharge of government functions”. To the contrary, it described judicial review as a “critical mechanism” for securing proper and effective government functions.

Lord Reed of Allermuir, the President of the Supreme Court,
‘In response to the Prime Minister’s proposals for a constitution commission to examine the role of judicial review, Lord Reed said:

Judges are very well aware of the risk of challenges being brought in what are political rather than legal grounds. They are repelling them and are careful to avoid straying into what are genuine political matters. When this is a matter that is to be considered it should not start from the premise that judges are eager to pronounce on political issues. The true position is actually quite the opposite.

As for your fathers advice, I don’t think waiting until the bill has been passed to protest it is a smart way to stop the bill being passed - the horse has bolted. I’m sure his advice stands up in plenty of other context but not sure what your logic is there.

Thank you.

First my dad's saying.

What I attempted to point out to you which you seemed to have missed the point of completely, is that there is a due process to follow before a decision is arrived at.  By all means be involved in the process and state your case to be weighed and considered but the time for wailing is when the decision is made against you and not from the outset.

Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) once famously said "the reports of my death are greatly exaggerated" - meaning obviously that he had not died and all the fuss was over nothing that actually had happened!

Your additional quote from the Law Society - I refer you to my existing comments about the Law Society.

In reply to the Bar Council quote - I don't believe for one second that you've read the document you have taken the comment from, let alone understood it.

In simple terms - and as part of how the system works - which I keep referring you to (and which you clearly are ignorant of) the process of starting the task of translating the executives desires to create legislation is to invite all relevant interested parties to take part - the link below explains it clearly in respect of what we've been discussing on here -

https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/independent-review-of-administrative-law

The Bar Council's reply - and in particular it's key statement which you have quoted - refers specifically and almost exclusively to how JR's do and should work  - in fact in the quote you show is actually EDITED and not a true reflection of what was actually stated which was this -

7. In any event, the Bar Council rejects the apparent suggestion that there is a
conflict between judicial review and “proper and effective discharge of [government]
functions”.2 On the contrary, judicial review is a critical mechanism for securing the
“proper and effective discharge of [government] functions”. Review on
procedural/fairness grounds ensures that decisions with important effects on people’s
lives are taken only after they have been properly heard: decisions not based on fair
procedures will be worse decisions and will command less public acceptance. Review
on grounds of actual or apparent bias is a safeguard against favouritism and
corruption, and helps maintain public confidence that decisions with major financial
impacts are taken without bias. Review on rationality grounds ensures that decision
makers take their decisions on the basis of, and supported by, relevant evidence: that
leads to better decision-making. Review on vires grounds ensures that decisionmakers respect the limits on their powers placed by Parliament, and helps protect our
democracy – a safeguard of particular importance in the area of statutory instruments,
where huge volumes of legislation, making profoundly important policy changes, go
virtually unscrutinised by Parliament. And review on human rights grounds helps
protect those whose fundamental interests may, for various reasons, not have been
properly considered in the decision-making process, while ultimately allowing
Parliament the final say (a point which is, again, of particular importance in relation
to virtually unscrutinised statutory instruments). In all these respects, judicial review
– and wide access to judicial review – assists in ensuring “effective” and “proper”
discharge of government functions (reading “proper” here – as it should be read – as
including “accountable” and “democratic”).3

I absolutely agree with them and have said this from the very beginning.

What the quote DOES NOT ADDRESS is if JR's are now being "abused to conduct politics by another means..." which is part of the question being asked by IRAL

The nearest the Bar Council got to addressing that matter was by deliberately NOT ANSWERING IT - see Paragraphs 8 and 9 in your link above.

Finally Lord Reed's comments to the House of Lords Constitutional Committee way back in March 2020.

I draw your attention to the comments on the article reported in the Law Gazette which universally disagrees with him.

Impossible to know who these people are disagreeing with him but I'd bet a £1 to a 1p that these are all members of the judiciary - and if I'm right in that thinking, then there clearly was at that time a dissenting view that JR's are now being "abused to conduct politics by another means..." and which have since exponentially increased in that respect in the following two years to now.


Finally I would just like to add that even if you still continue to disagree with me (which of course I know you will) that I trust that maybe now you might be beginning to realise that the way the constitution works - in this case you found for yourself (or had pointed out to you I suspect) such things as the IRAL and the House of Lords Constitutional Committee and that not everything is done in the full glare of the press or on social media as you seem to think.