The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) document suggests the justice minister, who is also deputy prime minister, is considering changes that would have the effect of limiting the accountability of ministers to judicial reviews brought by claimants concerned about how decisions have been taken by public bodies. The move comes amid rhetoric from ministers about overreach by judges and “left-wing lawyers”, with the recent judicial review case – still pending – challenging the Rwandan deportation flight having drawn the government’s ire. Despite the government consulting on judicial review only last year and parliament subsequently passing the Judicial Review and Courts Act, which came into force on 15 July, the Ministry of Justice document states: “You (DPM [deputy prime minister]) have indicated that they intend to consult on further reforms to judicial review.’ It then makes proposals for change – “depending on your initial policy directions and the outcome of any consultation” – which several experts told the Guardian would have the effect of making a successful review more difficult. Charlie Whelton, head of policy and campaigns at Liberty, said: “This leaked document suggests the government plans to make it even harder for people to challenge them and even less accountable to the public. “Over the past two years, we have seen an unprecedented attack on our legal rights, including through the Judicial Review and Courts Act and through ongoing proposals to repeal the Human Rights Act. The government is determined to make it as difficult as possible to bring them to justice and hold them accountable for illegal actions. “Whether it’s putting more obstacles in the way of bringing cases, overturning decisions they don’t like, or preventing more and more actions from being challenged, the government’s efforts to avoid accountability are setting a very dangerous precedent for all future governments of all stripes.” The Judicial Review and Courts Act removed the right of parties to review court decisions mainly in immigration/asylum and social security cases. But many believe Raab’s predecessor, Robert Buckland QC, who instigated the bill, was sacked for not going far enough to limit judicial review. The Justice Department document suggests Raab is determined to do so. One proposed change is to “assess the intensity of review to apply to different cases,” which could mean anything from dictating the criteria judges must apply to barring them from hearing cases in certain areas of the court’s decision-making. government. It also refers to the change in costs rules on “standing”, which requires a claimant to have a “sufficient interest” to bring an action. By increasing the burden of costs if parties are found to lack standing, the government could seek to discourage NGOs from pursuing cases with consequences for many people beyond the applicant. Finally, it suggests “dealing” with individual cases, including Privacy International, which ruled that the court of secret investigations was subject to judicial review, and the Guardian’s successful bid to publicize secret letters written by Prince Charles to government ministers. In the latter case, the high court ruled that the attorney general could not block publication just because he disagreed with a higher court’s decision to allow it. Subscribe to First Edition, our free daily newsletter – every morning at 7am. BST While it is the government’s prerogative to introduce legislation in parliament in response to a particular case, it has previously been suggested it wants to allow ministers themselves to draw up findings from judicial reviews they disagree with. Jolyon Maugham QC, director of the Good Law Project, which has been involved in high-profile judicial reviews against the government over Brexit and the VIP lane for suppliers of Covid personal protective equipment, said: “We already have laws to prevent cases that lack worth. And the effectiveness of judicial review as a tool to stop ministers from breaking the law is already under serious strain. “These measures are designed to deter the tiny cases that can nevertheless succeed. What Raab seems to want is a world in which the government is above the law.” The Guardian revealed in June that the number of high court judicial reviews (31) found for the plaintiff last year and the success rate (2.2% as a percentage of the total cases brought, or 30% of those that went to a final hearing) it was the lowest since records began in 2001, prompting fears that government rhetoric was having a chilling effect on judges. The Justice Department said it does not comment on leaked documents.
