'Lack of evidence' for judicial review restrictions

The Ministry of Justice’s plans to cut the number of judicial reviews by reducing time limits and increasing fees are based on “largely anecdotal and impressionistic evidence”, the Public Law Project (PLP) has said.

As the deadline for responses to a consultation expired today, a spokesman for the PLP said the proposals would make the civil justice system “more unfair, more inefficient and more inaccessible”.

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.

The PLP said the lack of an objective evidence base rendered the consultation exercise flawed, and to give consultees a proper opportunity to submit an informed response, the government should publish the evidence-base for the proposals, and then allow a further period of engagement.

“PLP also raises its concerns about the short time period for consultation responses. The government published its proposals over the Christmas vacation with only 24 working days for consultees to respond.

“This will necessarily have made it difficult for individuals and organisations to have formulated fully considered responses, particularly given the absence of evidence in the consultation document itself.”

The spokesman added that the government had made “mistaken and misleading” assertions that judicial review was on the rise, that it was subject to widespread abuse and was an impediment to economic growth.

A spokeswoman for the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law said judicial review served “vital constitutional functions” and the centre rejected the plans.

She said the proposals were also liable to “produce results at odds with the government’s stated objectives of reducing recourse to judicial review and enhancing clarity and certainty” in the area.

“If implemented, the proposals would be likely to make the law more complicated and more uncertain, and may serve to divert more cases into the courts by limiting the time available for non-litigious resolution of disputes.

“The existing application for judicial review adequately balances our right to challenge official decisions with the need for expeditious decision-making.”