Labour has pledged to cancel changes for judicial reviews that were introduced by the coalition government on the final day of parliament.



The last-minute changes were made in response to a high court ruling that partially overturned government measures to prevent claimants being paid until a judge gives permission for any case to go ahead.

Judicial reviews subject government or local authority decisions to close legal scrutiny; attempts to restrict them have generated furious exchanges between government and opposition.



The Criminal Courts and Justice Act imposed financial liabilities in line with David Cameron’s 2012 promise that the government would “charge more for [judicial] reviews so people think twice about time-wasting”.

The Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 were laid on Thursday 26 March, the last day that parliament sat, reinstating the withholding of funds in certain types of cases not explicitly covered by the high court ruling.

Labour had already promised to reverse the main restrictions on judicial reviews on the grounds that ministers should be held to account for their actions.

Labour’s justice spokesperson, Andy Slaughter, has now confirmed that a Labour government would also scrap the coalition’s last-minute change in order to “restore judicial review to its rightful place in the constitution and as an effective weapon against bad governance”.

Slaughter said: “The coalition government has been a disaster for access to justice and nowhere more than in its restrictions on judicial review, an essential check for the citizen on executive power.

“Labour will annul these changes, which are a petulant attempt to disregard the judgment of the high court, before they come into effect, and will reverse Grayling’s other attacks on judicial review.”

Martha Spurrier, a human rights barrister at Doughty Street chambers who appeared in the high court case, said: “Judicial review is a fundamental constitutional safeguard that allows individuals to hold the state to account and prevent abuses of power. These regulations, just like their predecessors that were struck down as unlawful by the high court, will have a chilling effect on judicial review and insulate the executive from scrutiny.

“The lord chancellor’s hasty use of secondary legislation to undermine the high court’s judgment, without consulting with any member of the public or the legal profession, is deeply concerning for anyone who believes that government is not above the law.”

At the time of the high court ruling in early March, the Ministry of Justice said the judgment did not find against the principle of the reforms.

Addressing the House of Lords before Christmas, the justice minister, Lord Faulks, said: “Judicial review is an essential part of the law but it is an area which has been misused with claims brought at great expense.

“Such challenges place significant burdens on the public purse. What the government wants to do is to restrict judicial review, not abolish it. It should not be used as a campaigning tool.”

