Justice Secretary Chris Grayling wants to stop activists mounting 'spurious legal challenges' –according to what standard?
Justice Secretary Chris Grayling wants to stop activists mounting ‘spurious legal challenges’ he says serve only to generate ‘media coverage for their cause’.
They will be banned from bringing judicial reviews – in which a court rules on whether the government is acting lawfully – which can delay developments and policies by years.
And local councils will no longer be able to judicially review decisions about major infrastructure projects taking place in their backyard.
The proposals follow a speech that Prime Minister David Cameron made to business leaders last year in which he promised to ‘get a grip’ on ‘time wasting’ legal challenges to help boost economic recovery.
But they are likely to spark furious protests about the public being denied a say.
The thin veneer of 'freedom' is being removed.
Applications for judicial review have risen from 4,500 in 1998 to 12,400 in 2012, and often take more than a year to resolve.
In a consultation launched today, Mr Grayling is also proposing making people who bring spurious cases pay some of the other side’s legal bill.
Campaigners against the HS2 high-speed rail line also used judicial reviews in an effort to halt the project
Recent challenges include an unsuccessful attempt to scupper the so-called ‘bedroom tax’, which cuts housing benefit for claimants with spare bedrooms.
Campaigners against the HS2 high-speed rail line also used judicial reviews in an effort to halt the project.
However, lawyers say protest groups may try to circumvent new rules by using a member of their organisation who lives close to a target to make the challenge in their name.
LEFT-WING LOBBY THAT HOLDS THE UK BACK
Tactics: Campaign 'professionals' –How much are they paid? Who by? Where do you get this job from? How does the paper know that a man wearing a mask is a professional?
The professional campaigners of Britain are growing in number, –an increase from 1 to 2 is an increase in numbers– taking over charities, –which ones? dominating BBC programmes –which ones? and swarming around Westminster. So?
Often, they are better paid than the people they –..... better paid than what?
There is a steady flow of people taking up such jobs from the world of politics – former advisers and politicians joining the ranks of these serial campaigners. –Is this journalist really claiming that the bloke in the Guy Fawkes mask is a former political adviser or politician? Which one? Why not name him if they are so certain?
In the charity sector, a whole range of former advisers from the last Government can be found in senior roles. –Such as which politicians and which charities?
The traffic also goes in the opposite direction, with campaigners lining up to try to become Labour MPs. –is this an 'anti-labour' political instrument?
While charities inundate Westminster with campaign material, they also target the legal system as a way of trying to get their policies accepted. –As opposed to politicians, corporations etc.
One essential part of the campaigner’s armoury is the judicial review, through which it is possible for them to challenge decisions of government and public bodies in the courts.
As a result, they hire teams of lawyers who have turned such legal challenges into a lucrative industry.
–Interesting claim, but why haven't they published any proof. Is this the stepping stone to preventing other people from accessing Judicial Reviews?
Judicial review has developed since the 1970s as a way for individuals to challenge decisions taken by the State. Then, there were just a few hundred cases a year. Now there are thousands. –Greater population with a better education coupled with more political tyranny?
Indeed, many are no longer just an opportunity for an individual to challenge an official decision, but are used by campaign groups as a legal delaying tactic for something they oppose.
–Just think about it, a group opposes something, so rather than winning & removing the problem, they lose so that they can delay it? Really?
For example, they are used to stop a new development project – often delaying an innovation that would bring economic benefits and jobs. At what cost? For whose profit?
By launching a judicial review, a project can be delayed by months or even years.
Earlier this year, my department won a case brought against us by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers which opposed a reduction in lawyers’ fees for motorists’ personal injury claims.
Other judicial reviews are launched in order to try to disrupt Government policies, such as those initiated by anti-HS2 campaigners or by those who believe it is right that taxpayers’ money should be spent on subsidising people in social housing to keep spare rooms.–Would you be shocked if i told you that this arrogant, belligerent wanker is a Tory, or a conservative?
What this is, is, an attempt to stop community opposition to draconian government ideas to further gouge and rape the public whose conditional freedom is predicated on the whims of a politician.
Judicial reviews are also started because campaigners believe that they will get media coverage for their cause.
A complete, utter and unadulterated lie. Allow me to explain:
If the story was interesting enough to the corporate media to cover, they would've already done so during the case, no editor will hold of running a newsworthy story because it hasn't got to judicial review.
The most bizarre case I have come across is that launched by so-called representatives of the ‘Plantagenet family’ arguing that we must have a public consultation on where the remains of Richard III – which had just been dug up from a car park in Leicester – should be buried. Is that really a sensible way for public money to be spent?
–This was being done by ex-politicians or advisors as 'campaign professionals'.
For the taxpayer often –but not always– has to foot the bill for the whole process. Indeed, the last Government even paid the bills of protest groups when they lost their case.
Campaign groups have taken it for granted that courts will expect the public body involved to pick up most of the costs. –Opinion that has been backed up with zero facts– But I believe that it is time we –it's always we & us when they want to justify a further intrusion into your rights– put a stop to this.
Of course, the judicial review system is an important way to right wrongs, but it is not a promotional tool for countless Left-wing campaigners. Please think about the Radiohead lyric that i am about to quote as it pertains to the previous statement that is in bold.
"i will stop
i will stop at nothing
i trust i can rely on your vote"
Electioneering doesn't just take place during designated election campaigns.
So that is why we are publishing/attempting to justify our proposals for change/to further harm you and restrict your freedom.
We will protect the parts of judicial review that are essential to justice, but stop the abuse.
According to their political standards, until they change their mind on this because your freedom is contingent on the whims of a politician.
Britain cannot afford to allow a culture of Left-wing-dominated, –so nothing to do with the right wing Labour Party then– single-issue activism –multi-issue activism like 'Occupy' is fine– to hold back our country from investing in infrastructure and new sources of energy and from bringing down the cost of our welfare state.Can we have a law banning politicians from lying and spinning crap like the aforementioned?
Could we just wake the fuck up collectively?
We need to take decisions quicker and respond to issues more quickly in what is a true global race.
Between who? When did it start? When does it end? How do you score? What are the rules? Who is the referee?
The Left does not understand this, and believes that our society can do everything for everyone, and that those who work hard to get on in life should pick up the tab.
Where is this articulated & how is this relevant given that this abstract concept euphemistically called "the left" has as much chance of wielding the instuments of political power in England as i do.
They want more money for public services, but at the same time to be able to halt the investments which can deliver the wealth that pays for those services.
In proposing these changes, I will no doubt be accused of killing justice and destroying Magna Carta.
So he knows precisely what he is doing.
Although as the great old lady of British law is approaching her 800th birthday, and the judicial review system is barely 40, I’m not sure that argument stacks up.
To review how stupid this politician thinks you are, he refutes the argument that he is destroying the magna carta on the basis that it is 760 years older than the judicial review system. Scary thing is that someone will buy into this rubbish.
But in proposing these changes, I know we will be doing the right thing for Britain.
Interesting that the journalist who wrote this article, wrote it in the first person from the perspective of the Minister. Nice of the politician to end with a lie. Just as he started. Great to see the consistency.