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

[stumbledin]

So okay, I am no legal eagle so may not be quite clear about this.

But it seems over the past few years, campaigning hasn't always been sucessful, but using the legal procedure of Judicial Review has been a positive option for women's rights.

" ... Judicial review is a process that enables citizens to challenge the lawfulness of decisions made by public bodies (such as government departments, local councils, and health authorities). The Human Rights Act is the law that enshrines the vast majority of the fundamental rights enjoyed by people in our country. ... "

Well it seems the Tories want to change (end?) Judicial Reviews.

A campaign has been launched today to challenge any undermining of this by a number of groups, including some women's groups.

humanrightsact.org.uk/why-were-campaigning/

Just thought I would alert those on FWR to this.

The Law Society has come out in favour of JR
www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/jr-vital-to-constitutional-balance-of-powers-society/5106148.article

[quote ChazsBrilliantAttitude]The Law Society has come out in favour of JR
www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/jr-vital-to-constitutional-balance-of-powers-society/5106148.article[/quote]
Well of course they have. Judicial Reviews means jobs for lawyers.

It isn't just Judicial Reviews that are under attack. It's the entire concept of an independent judiciary. Buoyed up by the dog whistle medias demonisation of lawyers defending the guilty.

The narrative has already been spun and won that to try and stop the government is an affront to democracy. And now it's being joined with the narrative that trials are a waste of time when people are obviously guilty so why bother ? No trials means no judges or lawyers. I do hope that not too many of the younger generation are eyeing up a career in law. It may not be a long one.

The English constitution - immortalised by Coke, Dicey and Bagehot - was predicated upon the three pillars of Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. By removing the Judiciary and suborning the legislature we are creating a totalitarian regime that we will only be rid of with a lot of blood.

I'm glad I'm old.

There is a strong push to discourage the Commission from using the Article 50 JR as an excuse to attack JR more generally. As I stated before part of this drive is around the justiciability of prerogative powers.
I think the enemies of the people was a low point and the push back was huge.
The Government tried to destroy Criminal Legal Aid and lawyers from all parts of the profession fought it as a point of principle.

@AnyOldPrion

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.

Quite. Unsurprising, but terrifying really.

I suspect this is a Done Deal dressed up as a proposal.

Ultimately, with a majority of 80 and a supine media, the government can legislate pretty much whatever it likes. It's hardly like parliament is the apex of the countries smarts, is it.

Update to thread: BBC news report today.
Looks like all our concerns are still valid. The Law Society are concerned.
Can any lawyers comment? Have other media covered this?

Judicial review: Plan to reform scrutiny by courts revealed
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57909168

‘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 call it an attempt to stop scrutiny of bad decisions.
Judicial review most famously led to the Supreme Court's judgement that Prime Minister Boris Johnson unlawfully closed down Parliament ahead of Brexit.
Any decision taken by a public body can be challenged in a judicial review before a High Court judge - and the power is used daily to examine whether officials are following the laws set by Parliament governing their work.
Recent examples include a challenge to exam grades being set by algorithms in England - the threat of which contributed to a government U-turn - and the blocking of the release of the so-called "black-cab rapist" John Worboys.
But 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.
Judges will have clearer powers to delay when and how public bodies must act to correct their unlawful actions - and they could even rule that they do not have to retrospectively apply it to the unlawful action that led to the case in the first place.
The bill will also ban a particular type of last-ditch judicial review seen in immigration cases.
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."
One of the government's most controversial proposals was to explicitly prevent judges from examining entire types of decisions, which could have led to ministers gaining wide-ranging immunity from legal action.
While that explicit proposal has been abandoned - the bill keeps the idea alive by introducing a way to create so-called "ouster clauses" at a later date.
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."

What are judicial reviews?
A type of court case that allows members of the public to challenge the legality of a government decision.
It can be a decision by a government department, a regulator, a local council and certain other public bodies
Judicial reviews cannot overturn entire Acts of Parliament passed by MPs
Decisions can be challenged on the grounds that a minister did not have the power to make it, or the process leading up to it was unfair or irrational
A decision can also be overturned if a public authority has acted in a way which is incompatible with the Human Rights Act
Most cases do not get very far - in 2018 only 218 made it as far as a court hearing, out of 3,597 that were lodged
Of the cases that reached court, the government won 50% of them.’

www.theguardian.com/law/2021/jul/21/law-society-sounds-warning-against-judicial-review-bill

Guardian has also covered it.

@MNHQ: I’m not sure that this thread is best to have been moved into the ‘sex and gender discussions’ area.
Access to justice is a very wide ranging issue facing women in general. The handful of ‘gender’ related (or sex-based rights upholding) JR cases (or efforts to crowd-fund to bring cases of that kind), are always going to be dwarfed in number by JRs affecting women on many other issues, such as around their immigration rights.
Please could this thread be restored to Feminism Chat?

The Law Society and The Guardian are not interested in this government proposal because of any threat that they think it might hold to future JRs brought to try to uphold sex-based rights. As the Law Society seem to be saying, it’s partly the sweeping nature of this and the chilling effect it would have on so many types of cases affecting many individuals, that makes this proposal so worrying.

Please could this thread be restored to Feminism Chat?

Do we know that Feminism Chat gets more engagement and visitors than S&GD?

I agree on the wide-ranging nature of the chilling effect and the ripple effect for more people than are currently aware.

I have no idea about relative user numbers but sadly this is an issue affecting legal situations for women way beyond the scope of solely defending women’s sex based rights- though it is highly relevant to future JRs on that topic too.
If MNHQ are right that some women avoid this board, then I wouldn’t want anyone to miss out on possibly being alerted to this worrying move by government because of the FWR Great Divide.