Justice
Minister, Chris Grayling has come out with his strongest attack yet, on the
right to seek judicial review of government decisions.
In an
outburst in which he shows no understanding of the workings of campaign groups
he accuses them of pursuing cases by using ‘human shields’. That is a phrase that
we associate with some of the most extreme dictators of recent years and should
never appear in any discussion on people’s rights.
What he
means is that a group brings an action in the name of an individual and then ‘rows
in behind them’. If the case fails then there is no costs liability to the
organization.
Does he
think that such groups pursue claims for their own benefit?
I assume
that he has in mind the action taken by ten disabled people to challenge the
impact of the Bedroom Tax. This was supported by the leading housing charity
Shelter which gave evidence –
Or maybe
even the action taken by the Countryside Alliance in 2004 against the fox hunting ban –
Actions
taken by political leaders normally affect a significant group of citizens. A campaigning
organization supports that group and brings an action on their behalf. This
avoids the need for thousands of separate actions. Shelter would not gain
anything from the Bedroom Tax case. The only winners would have been the
disabled tenants.
Judicial Review exists as a remedy in to ensure that the executive acts within the law. It
has played a huge role in protecting the ordinary citizen against political
excesses. It is not popular with politicians. Former Labour Home Secretary,
David Blunkett famously threatened to curb the power of judges –
Distaste for judicial scrutiny crosses political lines. This is why
Judicial Review is so important. It is not a question of judges overruling parliament.
Courts cannot overrule legislation - apart from limited cases involving Europe. But ministers still have to act within their
powers. If those powers are abused and people’s rights are affected then they
must have an unfettered remedy to seek a judicial review.
Mr.
Grayling goes on to limit human rights concerns to North Korea. On the assumption that
this must be an April Fool I will resist further comment.
No comments:
Post a Comment