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

435998

registered interest
date	02/12/2015
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 plans he has to reform judicial review.
tabling member constituency	Edmonton
tabling member printed	Kate Osamor
uin	902611
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 08/12/2015 answer text <p>The government has always been clear that judicial review, when used properly, is a crucial component of the rule of law.</p><p>But too often the system is open to abuse. That is why we have taken forward reform, such as the creation of the Planning Court, which we have implemented with the assistance of the judiciary, and the changes in the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, which we are implementing. The reforms will speed up the process for people who have arguable grounds and a genuine case to put.</p> answering member constituency Esher and Walton answering member printed Dominic Raab question first answered 08/12/2015 16:47:10 answering member 4007 label Biography information for Dominic Raab
tabling member	4515 label Biography information for Kate Osamor

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

177246

registered interest
date	28/01/2015
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 steps the Government is taking to uphold the constitutional importance of judicial review.
tabling member constituency	Middlesbrough
tabling member printed	Andy McDonald
uin	907383
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/02/2015 answer text <p /> <p>The Government’s reforms to judicial review provide a more balanced and practicable approach that will ensure cases with merit can proceed quickly through to resolution and unmeritorious claims which abuse the system and cause unnecessary delays are filtered out at the earliest opportunity.</p><p> </p><p>There is nothing in the reform package which undermines the constitutional role of judicial review as a vital check on the State.</p> answering member constituency South West Bedfordshire answering member printed Andrew Selous question first answered 03/02/2015 17:33:17 answering member 1453 label Biography information for Andrew Selous
tabling member	4269 label Biography information for Andy McDonald

172602

registered interest
date	07/01/2015
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 amount his Department has spent on legal fees in judicial review cases in which it was found to have acted unlawfully since 2010.
tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
tabling member printed	Mr Andy Slaughter
uin	220082
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 12/01/2015 answer text <p>The Department does not keep a central record of the legal spend and the outcome in every judicial review brought against it or its associated bodies.</p><p> </p><p>To bring together the information sought would incur disproportionate cost.</p> answering member constituency North West Cambridgeshire answering member printed Mr Shailesh Vara question first answered 12/01/2015 17:46:03 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

169010

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 71, what assessment he has made of when and how the system of judicial review ceased to be based on common sense.
tabling member constituency	Hammersmith
tabling member printed	Mr Andy Slaughter
uin	217849
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/12/2014 answer text <p>The Government has always been clear that judicial review, when used properly, can be a crucial component of the rule of law.</p><p> </p><p>But in the Government’s view, too often the system is open to abuse, and the common sense reforms, which, following two consultations, the Government has implemented and is seeking to implement, are needed to rebalance the system of judicial review.</p><p> </p><p>In the Government’s view, for example, the creation of a Planning Court, with the assistance of the judiciary, to speed up the consideration of challenges to key projects, is a common sense reform. That reform is now delivering significant improvements. The available evidence suggests planning judicial reviews are now significantly quicker as a result of the reforms which followed the first consultation and the introduction of the Planning Court in April 2014, which followed the second consultation. For those which reach a substantive hearing (i.e. excluding those refused permission or otherwise determined earlier in the process) the average time fell by around 30% from 54 weeks in the 12 months to April 2013 to 39 weeks in the 12 months to September 2014. This is a substantial improvement in advance of the rest of the reforms taking effect.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency North West Cambridgeshire answering member printed Mr Shailesh Vara question first answered 17/12/2014 14:02:29 answering member 1496 label Biography information for Shailesh Vara
tabling member	1516 label Biography information for Andy Slaughter

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

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

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