Criminal Justice and Courts Bill — Clause 64 — Rejection of Judicial Review Application If No Substantially Different Outcome Likely — Allow or Require — 1 Dec 2014 at 19:00

John Baron MP, Basildon and Billericay voted to require, rather than merely allow, 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.

The majority of MPs voted to require, rather than merely allow, 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.

The intent was explained by Chris Grayling MP[1] in the debate as being to prevent judicial reviews into technicalities.

MPs were considering the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill[2]. The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

  • That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 97

Lords amendment 97[3] stated:

  • Page 64, line 35, leave out “must” and insert “may”

The amendment affected Clause 64 of the Bill[4] titled Likelihood of substantially different outcome for applicant. The impacted element sought add to Section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 which relates to applications to the High Court for judicial reviews and the powers of the court to subsequently make declarations, grant injunctions and award the applicant damages, restitution or the recovery of a sum due.

  • The High Court—
  • (a) must refuse to grant relief on an application for judicial review, and
  • (b) may not make an award under subsection (4) on such an application,
  • 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.”

Subsection 4 deals with awards of damages or restitution or the recovery of a sum due.

Debate in Parliament | Source |

Party Summary

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.

PartyMajority (Aye)Minority (No)BothTurnout
Con276 (+1 tell) 2092.1%
DUP1 0012.5%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent1 10100.0%
Lab0 190 (+2 tell)074.4%
LDem41 (+1 tell) 1076.8%
PC0 30100.0%
Respect0 10100.0%
SDLP0 2066.7%
UKIP0 20100.0%
Total:319 203082.6%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
Geoffrey CoxTorridge and West DevonCon (front bench)no
Zac GoldsmithRichmond ParkCon (front bench)no
Sarah TeatherBrent CentralLDem (front bench)no

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive