Threat to Judicial Reviews by Tory reforms - implications for feminists having to seek legal means to preserve women's rights?

This was in their manifesto and, along with the women ´s right issue was my main concern at the last election. Indeed, access to justice is a massive issue, with it being virtually impossible without money and often ruinously expensive for those that do have enough. The issue suffers from the dual problem of being deeply unsexy and not relevant to most people as most people don’t need the courts and therefore it is difficult to get public interest and support. In addition, there is a general sense that only wrong ´uns end up needing courts or get in criminal trouble and therefore it is easy for Government’s to take funding away, both in terms of legal aid and in terms of how and whether costs are awarded.The Secret Barrister is illuminating on this. Though I am not sure that he specifically covers judicial review.

Having said that, every woman trying to divorce a controlling narcissistic husband will recognise the problem as going to court is simply not an option, because it is too expensive and they know that their husband will do everything they can to thwart the system and make it as expensive as possible.

For me, the women’s rights issue is so important because it is a foundational issue upon which the utility of any law relating to women relies. This issue of access to justice is also such a foundational issue and in many ways far more important. The laws and financial support that facilitate access to legal justice are not being removed, but eroded bit by bit. Each step is justified, then you look at the result and you see that access to justice is just an illusion.

Of course, there is the silver lining of a proliferation of crowd funding sites and charities providing financial support, but they rarely help those with unpopular cases or everyday problems.

Weren't JRs brought in to help iron out bad laws? Governments wanted swifter lawmaking but realised this could have implications; The JR had good beginnings, but then we learned to use. The law of unintended consequences. However, better lawmaking is always going to be the right answer

Oh, and the cynic in me says if you're writing to a Labour MP mention Brexit but not women's rights - some of them are so entrenched in misogyny, their knee jerk reaction would be to sell out a democratic principle rather than side with a feminist.

If you're in a red wall seat, now is the time to get lobbying and reminding your MP of how tenuous their seat is. Or if you have a Tory MP you know hates Boris (May and Javid, but there are many others).

It will take a lot voting against the whip to stymie this.

Also start writing to Starmer and your Labour MPs to make sure their policy is vote against rather than abstain.

Absolutely. I got to the point of asking for JR for a particular issue, only then did the government "find the paperwork". We got a positive decision after that.

They must be held to account.

I read somewhere that it was Gina Miller’s Brexit case, the challenge to the prorogation of Parliament and possibly the 3rd runway at Heathrow JR that got up the government’s nose and prompted this, all of which are perfectly legitimate challenges in a democratic society. This is a very worrying development which needs to be resisted with great vigour.

We should be afraid of this proposal, even if it doesn’t relate to women’s rights. This government is making a frightening power grab. Shouldn’t surprise anyone, given who’s running it. Thanks for the info StumbledIn.

Thanks.

Thanks a lot for bringing this to our attention. I'll have a read through and sign the petition. Will pass it on.

Thanks StumbledIn
Very pleased to see this being challenged
The blurb the government put out is chilling- tough shit if allowing people to challenge whether decisions should be remade is ‘inefficient’ it’s part of living in an accountable democracy you’d have thought..

www.gov.uk/government/news/government-launches-independent-panel-to-look-at-judicial-review