Criminal Justice and Courts Bill — Clause 55 — Refusal of Applications for Judicial Review If Highly Unlikley Conduct Complained About Changed Outcome — 17 Jun 2014 at 14:39
John Penrose MP, Weston-Super-Mare voted to require applications for judicial review to be refused if it appears to the court to be highly likely that the outcome for the applicant would not have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred.
The majority of MPs voted in favour of requiring an application for judicial review to be refused if it appears to the court to be highly likely that the outcome for the applicant would not have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred.
MPs were considering the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill. The motion rejected by the majority of MPs in this vote was:
Amendment: 23, page 55, line 12, leave out Clause 55
Clause 55 related to Judicial review in the High Court and Upper Tribunal and was titled Likelihood of substantially different outcome for applicant and had the effect described above.
-  Parliament's webpage on the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill
-  Clause 55 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill as at the time of the vote
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (No)||Minority (Aye)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||249 (+2 tell)||0||1||82.6%|
|Lab||0||215 (+2 tell)||0||84.1%|
|David Davis||Haltemprice and Howden||Con||both|
|Sarah Teather||Brent Central||LDem (front bench)||aye|