Judicial Review and Courts Bill — 26 Oct 2021 at 17:49

“it appears that permission was granted on grounds which had no merit, ought to have been withdrawn by their proponent, and do not seem to have been regarded as giving a reasonable prospect of success even in the granting of permission.”
“the rule of law is weakened, not strengthened, if a disproportionate part of the courts’ resources is devoted to finding a very occasional grain of wheat on a threshing floor full of chaff.”
“the interests or expectations of persons who would benefit from the quashing of the impugned act”
“who have relied on the impugned act”
“has the effect not of modifying a rule which is special to a reserved matter, but rather of creating such a rule, as it means that, in future, there will be a difference in the amenability of reserved and devolved tribunals to judicial review.”
“Judicial review is a cornerstone of British democracy. It empowers everyday people to challenge decisions made by public bodies. Whether it be central government or local authorities, rule makers are held accountable by ordinary people. This is a small, but important, check on the balance of powers in our democracy.”
“an obvious attempt to avoid accountability.”
“impose injustice and unfairness on those who have reasonably relied on its validity in the past.”
“unaccountable and unelected judges usurping the role of parliament, setting the wishes of the people at naught and pursuing a liberal politically correct agenda of their own”?
“We set the bar as high as we could when we were defining the test that should be applied, but experience has shown that our decision has not worked”.-[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 March 2021; Vol. 811, c. 710.]
“a disproportionate use of valuable judicial resource”.
“it is expected that the legal text that removes the Cart judgment will serve as a framework that can be replicated in other legislation.”
“for those who require it”.
“that the continued expenditure of judicial resources on considering applications for a Cart JR cannot be defended, and that the practice of making and considering such applications should be discontinued”,
“Accordingly, we recommend that section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 be amended to make it clear that the courts have the power to make suspended quashing orders in appropriate cases. This could be done through the insertion into section 31 of a new subsection (4A), which would read, ‘On an application for judicial review the High Court may suspend any quashing order that it makes, and provide that the order will not take effect if certain conditions specified by the High Court are satisfied within a certain time period.’”
“Guilty plea in writing: extension to proceedings following police charge”,
“the accused had attained the age of 16 when charged”.
“a concerted attempt to shut down potential routes of accountability and exert the power of the executive over Parliament, the courts and the public.”
“Be warned: this government is robbing you of your right to challenge the state”.
“is what ensures that the executive arm of government keeps to the law and that individual rights are protected”.
“it is expected that the legal text that removes the Cart judgment will serve as a framework that can be replicated in other legislation.”
“part of this Government’s bid to make itself…untouchable.”
“should ring alarm bells for people who come up against the might of the state.”
“In respecting separate jurisdictions, as I always do, these proposals relate to England and Wales matters and have been carefully delineated in that way.”-[Official Report, 18 March 2021; Vol. 691, c. 510.]
“My initial inclination was to treat the new two tier tribunal system as wholly self-sufficient… Can it not be left to the Senior President…to ensure that the tribunal judiciary is so deployed as to ensure the appropriate degree of judicial scrutiny of decisions of the lower tier?”
“There must be a limit to the resources”
“devote to the task of trying to get the decision right in any individual case.”
“experience has shown that our decision has not worked”.-[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 March 2021; Vol. 811, c. 710.]
“a return to the pre-2002 Act days in immigration and asylum cases when the courts were overwhelmed with unmeritorious judicial review claims.”
“I would however suspend the operation of the orders that I would make for a period of one month from the date of the judgment to give the Treasury time to consider what steps, if any, they should now take.”
“this Bill threatens to deny asylum seekers a fair hearing of their…claim… We urge the Government to take these criticisms seriously and to act on them.”
“How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is to have a thankless child!”
“The majority of Cart cases relate to Immigration and Asylum, therefore those who lose out…are more likely to have particular protected characteristics, for example in respect of race and/or religion or belief.”
“elementary and serious breaches of the principles of procedural fairness”
“the legal text that removes the Cart judgment will serve as a framework that can be replicated in other legislation.”
“Ouster clauses…which are intended to ensure a particular class of decision cannot be judicially reviewed, carry with them the inevitable implication that whoever has the protection of the ouster clause has the right to break the law with impunity”.
“is what ensures that the executive arm of government keeps to the law and that individual rights are protected.”

Debate in Parliament |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit free service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your electricity and/or gas to Bulb Energy who provide 100% renewable electricity and tend to be 20% cheaper than the 'Big Six'. They'll also pay any exit fees (up to £120) from your old supplier AND give you (and us) a £50 credit for joining up via our Bulb Referral Link.

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
Alliance0 10100.0%
Con312 (+2 tell) 0086.3%
DUP5 0062.5%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent1 10100.0%
Lab0 165 (+2 tell)082.7%
LDem0 8072.7%
PC0 30100.0%
SDLP0 20100.0%
SNP0 37077.1%
Total:318 218084.1%

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
no rebellions

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.

PublicWhip v2 codebase is currently under development - you can join the Slack group to find out more or email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive