Increase in JRs 'mainly the result of' immigration cases, MoJ admits

The rise in the number of judicial reviews is mainly the result of an increase in asylum and immigration cases, the Ministry of Justice has admitted.

In its consultation paper on cutting the number of judicial reviews published last week, the MoJ said that since October 2011, courts could transfer a limited amount of these cases to the Upper Tribunal.

Officials said that measures in the crime and courts bill, currently before parliament, would allow for all immigration, asylum or nationality judicial reviews to be heard in the Upper Tribunal, and allow the Lord Chief Justice to deploy judges more flexibly to respond more quickly to changes in demand.

The number of judicial reviews has grown from 160 in 1974 to 4,250 in 2000 and over 11,000 in 2011. Of the 7,600 applications for permission considered in 2011, only around one in six was granted.

The MoJ’s announcement on the consultation did not mention immigration cases at all.

“We have seen a huge surge in judicial review cases in recent years,” justice secretary Chris Grayling said.

“The system is becoming mired in large numbers of applications, many of which are weak or ill-founded, and they are taking up large amounts of judicial time, costing the court system money and can be hugely frustrating for the bodies involved in them.

“I am concerned that judicial review is being used increasingly by organisations for PR purposes. Often the mere process of starting a judicial review will generate a headline.

“We want go back to a system where judicial review is available for genuine claims, which provides people with access to judicial review where they need it but weeds out the cases that should frankly never be there in the first place.”

Among the measures in the consultation paper are cutting the time limits for bringing judicial reviews, from three months to six weeks in planning cases and three months to one month in public procurement cases.

Oral renewals would be scrapped for cases already heard or ‘totally without merit’ and fees would rise, from £60 to £235 for applications in the High Court.