Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed question first answered question first ministerially corrected answering member label previous answer version answering member constituency answering member printed answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

100080

	registered interest
	date	21/10/2014
	answering body	Attorney General
	answering dept id	88
	answering dept short name	Attorney General
	answering dept sort name	Attorney General
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Attorney General, how many judicial reviews there were involving Government departments according to records held by the (a) Treasury Solicitor and (b) Administrative Court Office in each of the last four years; and how many such reviews were upheld in whole or in part in each such year.
	tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
	tabling member printed	Mr Andy Slaughter
	uin	211271
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 28/10/2014 answer text <p>The Treasury Solicitor’s Department holds records relating only to those cases in which it has acted. The Treasury Solicitor represents most, but not all, government departments in litigation. For example, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs normally conducts its own litigation. According to records held by the Treasury Solicitor, the number of judicial reviews involving government departments in which it has acted in each of the last four years is as follows:</p><p>2010 – 8,566</p><p>2011 – 9,603</p><p>2012 – 10,274</p><p>2013 – 16,449</p><p>Information relating to how many of those reviews were upheld in whole or in part in each year is not held centrally and could not be created without incurring disproportionate cost.</p><p><del class="ministerial">The Administrative Court Office does not collate the information requested centrally and determining the number of reviews and how many such reviews were upheld in whole or in part would incur a disproportionate cost.</del></p><p><ins class="ministerial">The information requested in respect of the Administrative Court Office is published online at <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/267408/additional-court-tables-2012.xls" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/267408/additional-court-tables-2012.xls</a> . The 2013 data is not currently available.</ins></p> answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland question first answered 28/10/2014 15:10:43 question first ministerially corrected 05/01/2015 17:35:17 answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland previous answer version 24759 answering member constituency South Swindon answering member printed Mr Robert Buckland answering member 4106 label Biography information for Sir Robert Buckland
	tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter

100203

	registered interest
	date	21/10/2014
	answering body	Department of Health
	answering dept id	17
	answering dept short name	Health
	answering dept sort name	Health
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many judicial review cases have been successfully brought against his Department in each year since 2010.
	tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
	tabling member printed	Mr Andy Slaughter
	uin	211303
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 24/10/2014 answer text <p>The following table shows the number of judicial review cases brought against the Department and Public Health England (PHE) since 2010. Until 2013, information was not held centrally on whether the decisions challenged in these applications were upheld.</p><p> </p><p><strong> </strong></p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Year</p></td><td><p>Department of Health</p></td><td><p>Public Health England (an executive agency of the Department)</p></td><td><p> </p></td></tr><tr><td><p> </p></td><td><p>Number of applications for judicial review made during year</p></td><td><p>Number of applications for judicial review made during year</p></td><td><p>Number of applications upheld during year</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2010</p></td><td><p>35</p></td><td><p>-</p></td><td><p>-</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2011</p></td><td><p>26</p></td><td><p>-</p></td><td><p>-</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2012</p></td><td><p>27</p></td><td><p>-</p></td><td><p>-</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2013</p></td><td><p>29</p></td><td><p>1*</p></td><td><p>2**</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2014</p></td><td><p>11 to date</p></td><td><p>0 to date</p></td><td><p>0 to date</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>*This application was made prior to 31 March 2013, before the formation of PHE.</p><p> </p><p>** These were successful challenges against decisions of the Department of Health, the two applications were joined and dealt with together.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Battersea answering member printed Jane Ellison question first answered 24/10/2014 12:25:27 answering member 3918 label Biography information for Jane Ellison
	tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter

100213

	registered interest
	date	21/10/2014
	answering body	Home Office
	answering dept id	1
	answering dept short name	Home Office
	answering dept sort name	Home Office
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many judicial review cases have been successfully brought against her Department in each year since 2010.
	tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
	tabling member printed	Mr Andy Slaughter
	uin	211302
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 24/10/2014 answer text <p>No central records are kept of the number of judicial reviews successfully brought against the department since 2010 and it would incur disproportionate cost to try to acquire this information.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Staffordshire Moorlands answering member printed Karen Bradley question first answered 24/10/2014 16:02:04 answering member 4110 label Biography information for Dame Karen Bradley previous answer version 24146 answering member constituency Staffordshire Moorlands answering member printed Karen Bradley answering member 4110 label Biography information for Dame Karen Bradley
	tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter

425147

	registered interest
	date	30/10/2015
	answering body	Home Office
	answering dept id	1
	answering dept short name	Home Office
	answering dept sort name	Home Office
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many (a) search and (b) surveillance warrants issued by a judge have been subject to judicial review in each of the last five years.
	tabling member constituency	Haltemprice and Howden
	tabling member printed	Mr David Davis
	uin	14186
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 10/11/2015 answer text <p>Figures on the numbers of search warrants and surveillance authorisations subject to judicial review are not held centrally.</p> answering member constituency South Holland and The Deepings answering member printed Mr John Hayes question first answered 10/11/2015 17:00:35 answering member 350 label Biography information for Sir John Hayes previous answer version 27749 answering member constituency Hemel Hempstead answering member printed Mike Penning answering member 1528 label Biography information for Sir Mike Penning
	tabling member	373 label Biography information for Sir David Davis

100225

	registered interest
	date	21/10/2014
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, in how many judicial review cases his Department has unsuccessfully intervened since 2010.
	tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
	tabling member printed	Mr Andy Slaughter
	uin	211304
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 24/10/2014 answer text <p>The purpose of an intervention in a judicial review should be to help the court decide the case.</p><p>Details of interventions made by this department since 2010 are not held centrally.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Bermondsey and Old Southwark answering member printed Simon Hughes question first answered 24/10/2014 13:43:52 answering member 194 label Biography information for Simon Hughes
	tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter

100229

	registered interest
	date	21/10/2014
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many judicial review cases have been successfully brought against his Department in each year since 2010.
	tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
	tabling member printed	Mr Andy Slaughter
	uin	211301
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 24/10/2014 answer text <p>It has not been possible to access this information within the time limit but I will provide an answer in due course.</p> answering member constituency North West Cambridgeshire answering member printed Mr Shailesh Vara question first answered 24/10/2014 11:58:57 answering member 1496 label Biography information for Shailesh Vara
	tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter

1122776

	registered interest
	date	24/04/2019
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the average timescale is for the conclusion of a judicial review.
	tabling member constituency	Bethnal Green and Bow
	tabling member printed	Rushanara Ali
	uin	247071
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 02/05/2019 answer text <p>From January to December 2018 the average clearance time for a Judicial Review in the Administrative Court, from lodgement to a final hearing decision was 167 days. The published data is available at the following link: <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/civil-justice-statistics-october-to-december-2018" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/civil-justice-statistics-october-to-december-2018</a></p> answering member constituency South East Cambridgeshire answering member printed Lucy Frazer question first answered 02/05/2019 15:55:20 answering member 4517 label Biography information for Lucy Frazer
	tabling member	4138 label Biography information for Rushanara Ali

168350

	registered interest
	date	05/12/2014
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to his contribution of 1 December 2014, Official Report, column 72, on the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, what estimate he has made of the number of applications for judicial review which were granted on minor technicalities since 2010.
	tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
	tabling member printed	Mr Andy Slaughter
	uin	217565
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 10/02/2015 answer text <p>The Government has not made an estimate of the number of applications for judicial review which are granted on procedural defects or minor technicalities. Judicial review applications are not recorded in an accessible and reliable electronic form, but rather in paper case files which would need to be manually searched and as such there is no central figure. However, those involved in judicial reviews, including government departments, local authorities and businesses, are fully aware of the ways in which the judicial review process can be misused.</p><p>One of the reforms we are taking forward in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill (clause 84 of the print of the Bill currently awaiting Royal Assent) is to improve the way the courts deal with judicial reviews based on procedural defects. This is an important part of the Government’s programme to tackle public burdens, promote growth and stimulate economic recovery.</p> answering member constituency North West Cambridgeshire answering member printed Mr Shailesh Vara question first answered 10/02/2015 17:40:55 answering member 1496 label Biography information for Shailesh Vara
	tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter

169008

	registered interest
	date	09/12/2014
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the contribution of the Secretary of State for Justice on 1 December 2014, Official Report, column 73, on how many occasions in the last two years each government department has been threatened with judicial review; and in each such case, whether judicial review proceedings were subsequently (a) launched and (b) successful.
	tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
	tabling member printed	Mr Andy Slaughter
	uin	217847
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 15/12/2014 answer text <p>This information is not available. A ‘threat’ of judicial review could range for example from a pre-action letter sent to a central government department to an oral suggestion made at a stakeholder meeting.</p><p> </p><p>It is crucial that judicial review continues to hold public authorities to account for the right reasons. The Government’s reforms strike a fair and sensible balance between limiting the potential for the abuse of judicial review and protecting its vital role as a check on public authorities.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency North West Cambridgeshire answering member printed Mr Shailesh Vara question first answered 15/12/2014 15:27:53 answering member 1496 label Biography information for Shailesh Vara
	tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter

169009

	registered interest
	date	09/12/2014
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name	Justice
	answering dept sort name	Justice
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the contribution of the Secretary of State for Justice on 1 December 2014, Official Report, column 72, what the evidential basis was for his statement that minor technicalities in process have been used as an excuse to bring judicial review.
	tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
	tabling member printed	Mr Andy Slaughter
	uin	217848
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/01/2015 answer text <p>The Government accepts that failures of procedure can amount to substantive unlawfulness, and that judicial review is a crucial mechanism by which such unlawfulness is considered and remedied by the court.</p><p> </p><p>However, we are concerned by the continuing potential for a judicial review to be brought on minor technical points which could not have, or which were highly unlikely to have, substantially affected the outcome for the applicant.</p><p> </p><p>The potential for this type of challenge has been recognised by the courts, which have developed an approach in case law under which, if the outcome would inevitably have been the same even if the alleged defect had not occurred, the court can refuse the remedy sought – see, for example, <em>R v The Chief Constable of the Thames Valley Police, ex parte Cotton</em> [1990] IRLR 344.</p><p> </p><p>However, in the Government’s view the ‘inevitable’ threshold is too high to deal effectively with claims brought on minor technical points. Consequently, in clause 64 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill (as introduced into the House of Lords), the Government is legislating to provide for a ‘highly likely’ threshold.</p> answering member constituency Hemel Hempstead answering member printed Mike Penning question first answered 19/01/2015 16:59:01 answering member 1528 label Biography information for Sir Mike Penning
	tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter