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 answering member label previous answer version answering member constituency answering member printed answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

1341325

	registered interest
	date	28/06/2021
	answering body	Department for Work and Pensions
	answering dept id	29
	answering dept short name	Work and Pensions
	answering dept sort name	Work and Pensions
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how much her Department has spent from the public purse on contesting court cases in each of the last three years.
	tabling member constituency	Stalybridge and Hyde
	tabling member printed	Jonathan Reynolds
	uin	23183
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 01/07/2021 answer text <p>The Department does not keep this information centrally and to provide it would incur disproportionate costs.</p> answering member constituency Hexham answering member printed Guy Opperman question first answered 01/07/2021 15:42:22 answering member 4142 label Biography information for Guy Opperman
	tabling member	4119 label Biography information for Jonathan Reynolds

1148889

	registered interest
	date	14/10/2019
	answering body	Department for Work and Pensions
	answering dept id	29
	answering dept short name	Work and Pensions
	answering dept sort name	Work and Pensions
	hansard heading	Judicial Review
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many cases of judicial review are active in UK courts to which her Department is a party.
	tabling member constituency	Birkenhead
	tabling member printed	Frank Field
	uin	54
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/10/2019 answer text <p>As at 16 October 2019, there are 29 judicial reviews active in the UK courts to which the Department is a party.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Eastleigh answering member printed Mims Davies question first answered 17/10/2019 14:54:45 answering member 4513 label Biography information for Mims Davies
	tabling member	478 label Biography information for Lord Field of Birkenhead

1378934

	registered interest
	date	16/11/2021
	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 proceedings there are in respect of her Department; and if she will provide a breakdown of the number of judicial reviews being heard in (a) England and Wales's Upper Tribunal, (b) Scotland's Outer House of the Court of Session and (c) Northern Ireland's High Court.
	tabling member constituency	North Down
	tabling member printed	Stephen Farry
	uin	76046
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 24/11/2021 answer text <p>The total number of cases as a breakdown of cases in different courts is not held centrally for England and Wales</p><p>In relation to Scotland there are 95 active Home Office judicial review cases in the Outer House of the Court of Session.</p><p>In relation to Northern Ireland there are 46 active Home Office judicial review cases.</p> answering member constituency North West Hampshire answering member printed Kit Malthouse question first answered 24/11/2021 17:23:24 answering member 4495 label Biography information for Kit Malthouse
	tabling member	4856 label Biography information for Stephen Farry

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

1379020

	registered interest
	date	16/11/2021
	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 oral contribution by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice of 9 November 2021, Official Report , column 160, what assessment his Department has made of the effect of Cart-type judicial review cases on the Crown Court backlog.
	tabling member constituency	Tottenham
	tabling member printed	Mr David Lammy
	uin	75806
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 23/11/2021 answer text <p>In the oral contribution by the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice to which he refers, the PUS refers to the ‘precious resource’ of High Court Judges. As it states on judiciary.uk: ‘High Court judges can hear the most serious and sensitive cases in the Crown Court (for example murder)’. Our impact assessment sets out the Cart judicial review measure will save 172-180 judge days per year in the High Court and Upper Tribunal. A High Court Judge, who would otherwise be devoting time to considering Cart judicial review, may therefore instead devote that time to considering other serious cases in the Crown Court.</p><p> </p><p>We continue to take action to tackle the impact the pandemic has had on our criminal justice system, including Crown Court backlog.</p><p> </p><p>The Judicial Review and Courts Bill provides the Crown Court with increased flexibility to return certain cases to the magistrates’ court, helping support court recovery by saving an estimated 400 Crown Court sitting days per year.</p><p> </p><p>We have allocated over a quarter of a billion pounds on recovery in the last financial year, making court buildings safe, rolling out new technology for remote hearings, recruiting additional staff and opening Nightingale courtrooms, including retaining 32 Nightingale Court rooms until the end of March 2022.</p><p> </p><p>The Ministry of Justice’s Spending Review settlement provides £477 million to improve waiting times for victims and to reduce Crown Court backlogs caused by the pandemic.</p> answering member constituency South Suffolk answering member printed James Cartlidge question first answered 23/11/2021 16:48:41 answering member 4519 label Biography information for James Cartlidge
	tabling member	206 label Biography information for Mr David Lammy

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

1379858

	registered interest
	date	18/11/2021
	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 progress he has made in reforming the law of judicial review.
	tabling member constituency	Hendon
	tabling member printed	Dr Matthew Offord
	uin	77416
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 26/11/2021 answer text <p>The Judicial Review and Courts Bill delivers on the Government’s manifesto commitment to ensure that judicial review is available to protect the rights of individuals against an overbearing state, while ensuring that it is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays.</p><p> </p><p>The Bill creates new powers for the courts to modify quashing orders in Judicial Review proceedings and improves the flexibility of the courts to provide proportionate remedies, increasing the tools in their toolbox.</p><p> </p><p>Specifically, the power to suspend a quashing order allows the courts to give time for transitional arrangements to be made, or give Parliament the opportunity to pass legislation in response to a decision to quash.</p><p> </p><p>The Bill also allows for the retrospective effect of quashing orders to be removed or limited. This measure allows the court to protect third parties that have relied on decisions in the past, and whose legal position may be compromised if that decision is quashed retrospectively.</p><p> </p><p>Finally, the Bill removes <em>Cart</em> judicial reviews, by way of a narrow and carefully worded ouster clause. We want to remove <em>Cart </em>reviews because the situation is, in the Government’s firm view, a disproportionate use of resources in our justice system. Out of around 750 applications a year only 3.4% are successful, and these cases take up around 180 days of precious judicial resource a year.</p><p> </p><p>The Bill finished its Commons Committee stage on 23 November.</p> answering member constituency South Suffolk answering member printed James Cartlidge question first answered 26/11/2021 14:58:10 answering member 4519 label Biography information for James Cartlidge
	tabling member	4006 label Biography information for Dr Matthew Offord

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