Criminal Justice and Courts Bill — Clause 67 — Interveners and Costs — 1 Dec 2014 at 19:00

Oliver Letwin MP, West Dorset voted in favour of only requiring interveners to pay the costs of other parties in a judicial review case if certain criteria are met including the intervener effectively acting as a party in the case; where they were not of significant assistance to the court; or where they have behaved unreasonably.

The majority of MPs voted to only require interveners to pay the costs of other parties in a judicial review case if certain criteria are met including the intervener effectively acting as a party in the case; where they were not of significant assistance to the court; or where they have behaved unreasonably.

Interveners are not parties to a case, but they can put additional information and perspectives before the court. During a previous debate on the Bill it was said[1]:

  • 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[2]. The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

  • That the amendments be made.

This related to Government amendments (a) to (e) proposed in lieu of Lords amendment 107[3]

The previously rejected Lords amendment 107[4] related to Clause 67 of the Bill[5] and stated:

  • Page 67, line 25, leave out subsections (2) to (6) and insert—
  • “( ) The High Court and the Court of Appeal shall have a discretion whether to order an intervener to pay the costs of a relevant party to the proceedings, and shall have a discretion whether to order a relevant party to the proceedings to pay the intervener’s costs.

The subsections retained as a result of this vote and which would have been be deleted by the rejected Lords amendment 107 stated:

  • (2) A relevant party to the proceedings may not be ordered by the High Court or the Court of Appeal to pay the intervener’s costs in connection with the proceedings.
  • (3) Subsection (2) does not prevent the court making an order if it considers that there are exceptional circumstances that make it appropriate to do so.
  • (4) On an application to the High Court or the Court of Appeal by a relevant party to the proceedings, the court must order the intervener to pay any costs specified in the application that the court considers have been incurred by that party as a result of the intervener’s involvement in the proceedings.
  • (5) Subsection (4) does not require the court to make an order if it considers that there are exceptional circumstances that make it inappropriate to do so.
  • (6) In determining whether there are exceptional circumstances that are relevant for the purposes of subsection (3) or (5), the court must have regard to criteria specified in rules of court.

Government amendments (a) to (e) in lieu[3] stated:

  • (a) Page 67, line 22, leave out subsection (1) and insert—— “(1) This section applies where— (a) a person is granted permission to file evidence or make representations in judicial review proceedings, and (b) at that time, the person is not a relevant party to the proceedings. (1A) That person is referred to in this section as an “intervener”.”
  • (b) Page 67, line 30, leave out subsection (4) and insert— “(4) On an application to the High Court or the Court of Appeal by a relevant party to the proceedings, if the court is satisfied that a condition described in subsection (4A) is met in a stage of the proceedings that the court deals with, the court must order the intervener to pay any costs specified in the application that the court considers have been incurred by the relevant party as a result of the intervener’s involvement in that stage of the proceedings.

(4A) Those conditions are that—

(a) the intervener has acted, in substance, as the sole or principal applicant, defendant, appellant or respondent;

(b) the intervener’s evidence and representations, taken as a whole, have not been of significant assistance to the court;

(c) a significant part of the intervener’s evidence and representations relates to matters that it is not necessary for the court to consider in order to resolve the issues that are the subject of the stage in the proceedings;

(d) the intervener has behaved unreasonably.”

  • (c) Page 67, line 44, at end insert— “and the proceedings described in paragraphs (a) to (d) are “stages” of judicial review proceedings.”
  • (d) Page 68, line 3, leave out from beginning to “directly” in line 6 and insert— “(a) a person who is or has been an applicant or defendant in the proceedings described in subsection (7)(a), (b) or (c); (b) a person who is or has been an appellant or respondent in the proceedings described in subsection (7)(d); (c) any other person who is or has been”
  • (e) Page 68, line 8, at end insert— “( ) If a person who is an intervener in judicial review proceedings becomes a relevant party to the proceedings, the person is to be treated for the purposes of subsections (2) and (4) as having been a relevant party, rather than an intervener, at all times when involved in the proceedings.”

==

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
Con269 (+1 tell) 1089.4%
DUP1 0012.5%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent1 10100.0%
Lab0 189 (+2 tell)074.0%
LDem42 (+1 tell) 0076.8%
PC0 30100.0%
Respect0 10100.0%
SDLP0 2066.7%
UKIP1 0050.0%
Total:314 198081.0%

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
Zac GoldsmithRichmond ParkCon (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