Criminal Justice and Courts Bill — Clause 58 — Judicial Review — Interveners and Costs — 17 Jun 2014 at 14:39
John Penrose MP, Weston-Super-Mare voted in favour of a presumption that interveners in judicial review cases will be required to pay any costs incurred by other parties as a result of their intervention.
The majority of MPs in favour of a presumption that interveners in judicial review cases will be required to pay any costs incurred by other parties as a result of their intervention.
Interveners are not parties to the case, but they can put additional information and perspectives before the court. During the debate it was said:
- The role of interveners is most often to assist the court, and the most frequent interveners are organisations such as Liberty and Justice, whose expertise has proven invaluable in many cases
MPs were considering the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill. The motion rejected by the majority of MPs in this vote was:
- Amendment proposed: 35, page 58, line 2, leave out clause 58
Clause 58 required the court to order an intervener to pay any costs the court considers have been incurred result of the intervener’s involvement in the proceedings.
-  Parliament's webpage on the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill
-  Andy Slaughter MP (Hammersmith, Labour), House of Commons 17 June 2014
-  Clause 58 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||256 (+2 tell)||1||0||84.9%|
|Lab||0||213 (+2 tell)||0||83.3%|
|David Davis||Haltemprice and Howden||Con||aye|
|Sarah Teather||Brent Central||LDem (front bench)||aye|