http://www.publications.parliament.u...srd/lhan46.pdf
The above (113 pages) is yesterday in the House of Lords.
Read pages 952 thru 982.
In short HMG tried to change the terms and conditions under which a judicial review challenge could be brought. Although the debate is about various unrelated issues in the main (fracking, infrastructure, HS2) this is important in the context of APN's and perhaps even the section 58 FA 2008 campaign.
There is talk of challenges to APN's using JR. I have not seen one in action yet but perhaps they will happen.
The amendment proposed by the Lords and carried by a majority, has rejected the attempt to limit JR and preserved the ability of citizens to bring challenges.
Assuming that this is not reversed on a third reading in the Commons, this Government loss could be a faint ray of hope for some at least as far as delaying a demand is concerned (if not agreement of final liability).
The above (113 pages) is yesterday in the House of Lords.
Read pages 952 thru 982.
In short HMG tried to change the terms and conditions under which a judicial review challenge could be brought. Although the debate is about various unrelated issues in the main (fracking, infrastructure, HS2) this is important in the context of APN's and perhaps even the section 58 FA 2008 campaign.
There is talk of challenges to APN's using JR. I have not seen one in action yet but perhaps they will happen.
The amendment proposed by the Lords and carried by a majority, has rejected the attempt to limit JR and preserved the ability of citizens to bring challenges.
Assuming that this is not reversed on a third reading in the Commons, this Government loss could be a faint ray of hope for some at least as far as delaying a demand is concerned (if not agreement of final liability).
Comment