JUSTICE considers that the proposals for reform in Judicial Review: Proposals for further reform are ill-considered, poorly evidenced and ill-advised.
- The changes proposed to legal aid for judicial review appear designed to insulate public decision makers from effective judicial oversight
- Proposals on standing and costs could significantly impact upon public interest litigation within the United Kingdom, without considering the important public interest function played by organisations who expend resources to bring cases that would otherwise not be heard.
- The picture painted by the consultation of the conduct of third party interveners neglects that the role of organisations who intervene in the public interest is to assist the court.
- The measures which address standing, protective costs orders and the costs of interventions further appear to neglect the gatekeeper function of the courts in making these public interest orders
Judicial Review: Proposals for further reform – JUSTICE response