Criminal Justice and Courts Bill — Clause 65 — Power to Accept Judicial Review Application In Absence of Financial Information — 1 Dec 2014 at 19:00
Julian Huppert MP, Cambridge voted not to give the high court the ability to accept an application for a judicial review if the applicant has failed to provide information about the financing of their application.
The majority of MPs voted not to give the high court the ability to accept an application for a judicial review if the applicant has failed to provide information about the financing of their application.
MPs were considering the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill. The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:
That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 103
Lords amendment 103 stated:
- Page 66, line 10, after “paragraph” insert “or, notwithstanding a failure to do so, the court in its discretion considers that it is nevertheless appropriate to grant the applicant leave to make the application for judicial review
Had it not been rejected the above text would have been inserted into Clause 65 following the text stating:
- The applicant has provided the court with any information about the financing of the application that is specified in rules of court for the purposes of this paragraph.
This text was to be appended to Section 31(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 adding an additional prerequisite for an application for judicial review.
-  Parliament's webpage on the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill
-  Amendment sheet containing Lords amendment 97
-  Clause 65 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 (Aye)||Minority (No)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||269 (+1 tell)||2||0||89.8%|
|Lab||0||192 (+2 tell)||0||75.2%|
|LDem||42 (+1 tell)||1||0||78.6%|
|Geoffrey Cox||Torridge and West Devon||Con (front bench)||no|
|Zac Goldsmith||Richmond Park||Con (front bench)||no|
|Sarah Teather||Brent Central||LDem (front bench)||no|