Judicial Review - HMG attempt to stifle - defeated

[pimpernell]

To be strictly accurate (pedantic), The only two of the above they have is "pay up front" - which is not unusual in other countries - and right to enter - which has been around for a long time.

The others might be on the wish list but have yet to materialize.

Accepted. But they're going for it. The point I was trying to make is that civil liberties that we sort of take for granted, are being eroded, or at least under attack, and its being done on qt.

[Rob79]

This lot are really going for it aren't they:

Withdrawal from European Human Rights Act
Pay up front
Raid bank accounts
Right to enter premises
Withdrawal of right of Judicial review

Talk about police state.

But yeah - thanks for the info Rob and for keeping your finger on the pulse.

To be strictly accurate (pedantic), The only two of the above they have is "pay up front" - which is not unusual in other countries - and right to enter - which has been around for a long time.

The others might be on the wish list but have yet to materialize.

[pimpernell]

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).

This lot are really going for it aren't they:

Withdrawal from European Human Rights Act
Pay up front
Raid bank accounts
Right to enter premises
Withdrawal of right of Judicial review

Talk about police state.

But yeah - thanks for the info Rob and for keeping your finger on the pulse.

[Rob79]

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).