>#Left-wing lawyers in Rishi Sunak’s crosshairs as he fights politically motivated ‘lawfare’
>Ex-chancellor vows to stop spate of ‘vexatious’ judicial reviews if he becomes Conservative leader and the next PM
>By Tony Diver, WHITEHALL CORRESPONDENT
>20 August 2022 • 10:30pm
>Left-wing lawyers would be blocked from launching “politically motivated” judicial reviews if Rishi Sunak wins the Conservative leadership race, he has vowed.
>The former chancellor has said he would attempt to stop “lawfare” in the courts, following a series of cases brought by the Good Law Project.
>The project – run by Jolyon Maugham, the Remain-supporting barrister – challenged the Government over several procurement decisions taken during the pandemic.
>Its cases have included a judicial review of PPE contracts awarded by the Department of Health and a decision to hand a communications contract to Public First, a firm linked to Dominic Cummings.
>The group also challenged the decision to appoint Baroness Harding, a former telecoms chief executive and wife of a Tory MP, as interim chairman of the National Institute for Health Protection in Aug 2020.
>Government sources argue that such cases are not in the public interest as they cost taxpayers to defend in court and are often unsuccessful.
>__Political campaigners ‘clogging up the courts’__
>Mr Sunak declared that attempts by Left-wing lawyers to frustrate government decisions were “vexatious” and plans to end the “politicisation” of the courts though “lawfare” if he wins the Conservative leadership election next month.
>“I have the greatest respect for our judiciary and the rule of law in this country, which is why I want to call time on politically motivated cases being brought before our courts,” he said.
>“Like millions, in 2016 I voted for our Parliament to take back control. But it’s increasingly clear an entire lawfare industry is seeking to stand in the way of Parliament and the Government delivering change.
>“Repeated vexatious judicial reviews by political campaigners are clogging up the courts, costing us a fortune and acting as a drag on the Government delivering for the public.”
>Mr Sunak’s campaign believes he could clamp down on the challenges without passing primary legislation, by laying a statutory instrument in Parliament.
>A source close to him pointed to a recent body of case law on judicial reviews, including a judgment that the Good Law Project did not have “carte blanche” to launch challenges to decisions that do not relate to its work.
>In response to the project’s claim against the Government over Baroness Harding’s appointment, two High Court judges said that “no individual, even with a sincere interest in public law issues, would be regarded as having standing in all cases”.
>__Judicial review process ‘being abused’__
>Earlier this month a leaked document from the Ministry of Justice suggested Dominic Raab, who is backing Mr Sunak, was also considering plans to limit judicial reviews.
>He has also said he wants to make it more difficult for lawyers to challenge the Government with “frivolous and costly immigration appeals” designed to stop illegal migrants from being deported.
>Lucy Frazer, a Tory MP and former solicitor general who is backing Mr Sunak, said: “The judicial review process is being abused by campaigners who disagree with policy set by a democratically elected government.
>“We need to act on this to stop our stretched courts being overwhelmed by political claims. Rishi Sunak’s government will act to get a grip of the increasing burden political activist lawyers are placing on the judiciary.”
>But the policy is likely to attract criticism from open justice campaigners, who could argue that the move would restrict the ability to challenge potentially unlawful decisions by ministers.
>Mr Raab has also said he hopes to reduce UK courts’ reliance on the European Court of Human Rights, using legislation returning to the House of Commons next month.
>Labour has said ministers would be better to deal with “chaos” in the courts and backlogs, rather than embark on major human rights reform.
Sounds like cultish rhetoric divorced from reality.
Calling something political or lefty doesn’t invalidate it.
> Left-wing lawyers would be blocked from launching “politically motivated” judicial reviews
Fascism, plain and simple.
Ahh yes, the courts are ‘clogged up’ and ‘overwhelmed’ because of people fighting against the government.
It’s definitely not because of the hundreds of courts the government have closed…
>“I have the greatest respect for our judiciary and the rule of law in this country, which is why I want to ~~call time on politically motivated cases being brought before our courts~~ undermine their independent decisions to allow judicial reviews that go against my party,”
The court literally has to decide if there’s a genuinely arguable case before it grants permission for the review to be heard. Sunak is saying he’ll stop judicial reviews *that the courts have determined have sufficient merit to warrant the process*.
>Left-wing lawyers in Rishi Sunak’s crosshairs as he fights politically motivated ‘lawfare’
Let me translate
*Justice is only available those who can afford it, if you can’t afford it then know your place and keep quiet*
Our culture is under attack, plain and simple. We have the rule of law and a separation between legislatirs and judiciary, as a check and balance in our democracy.
It doesn’t work like that in other countries and we don’t want to import the kind of corrupt systems that they have in other parts of the world to the UK.
By ‘politically motivated’ he means “compassionate, empathetic snd protective of hard won protections and rights” – these are the things he is at war with.
WOW. Curtailing judicial review. JUDICIAL REVIEW.
This is insane. Surely? And wholly circular. The government decides which of its actions can be legally challenged – What’s the point of JR?
“You can only challenge me if I allow it.”
The irony being, Rishi says this is taking politicization out of the courts. But it’s opposite – this is government involvement in the JR process, ergo politicizing it from the outside.
Unless I’m misunderstanding this entirely, it has to be unconstitutional. The judiciary must be independent.
I remember Patel attacked immigration lawyers after being warned by MI6 her words could cause unrest and successfully incited a stabbing at a lawyer’s office.
Incitement to violence is all well and good, if you’re a Tory of course.
So we’ve got someone who wants to send people to reeducation camps if they crticise the UK and its government and now they want to go after lawyers who launch judicial reviews.
11 comments
>#Left-wing lawyers in Rishi Sunak’s crosshairs as he fights politically motivated ‘lawfare’
>Ex-chancellor vows to stop spate of ‘vexatious’ judicial reviews if he becomes Conservative leader and the next PM
>By Tony Diver, WHITEHALL CORRESPONDENT
>20 August 2022 • 10:30pm
>Left-wing lawyers would be blocked from launching “politically motivated” judicial reviews if Rishi Sunak wins the Conservative leadership race, he has vowed.
>The former chancellor has said he would attempt to stop “lawfare” in the courts, following a series of cases brought by the Good Law Project.
>The project – run by Jolyon Maugham, the Remain-supporting barrister – challenged the Government over several procurement decisions taken during the pandemic.
>Its cases have included a judicial review of PPE contracts awarded by the Department of Health and a decision to hand a communications contract to Public First, a firm linked to Dominic Cummings.
>The group also challenged the decision to appoint Baroness Harding, a former telecoms chief executive and wife of a Tory MP, as interim chairman of the National Institute for Health Protection in Aug 2020.
>Government sources argue that such cases are not in the public interest as they cost taxpayers to defend in court and are often unsuccessful.
>__Political campaigners ‘clogging up the courts’__
>Mr Sunak declared that attempts by Left-wing lawyers to frustrate government decisions were “vexatious” and plans to end the “politicisation” of the courts though “lawfare” if he wins the Conservative leadership election next month.
>“I have the greatest respect for our judiciary and the rule of law in this country, which is why I want to call time on politically motivated cases being brought before our courts,” he said.
>“Like millions, in 2016 I voted for our Parliament to take back control. But it’s increasingly clear an entire lawfare industry is seeking to stand in the way of Parliament and the Government delivering change.
>“Repeated vexatious judicial reviews by political campaigners are clogging up the courts, costing us a fortune and acting as a drag on the Government delivering for the public.”
>Mr Sunak’s campaign believes he could clamp down on the challenges without passing primary legislation, by laying a statutory instrument in Parliament.
>A source close to him pointed to a recent body of case law on judicial reviews, including a judgment that the Good Law Project did not have “carte blanche” to launch challenges to decisions that do not relate to its work.
>In response to the project’s claim against the Government over Baroness Harding’s appointment, two High Court judges said that “no individual, even with a sincere interest in public law issues, would be regarded as having standing in all cases”.
>__Judicial review process ‘being abused’__
>Earlier this month a leaked document from the Ministry of Justice suggested Dominic Raab, who is backing Mr Sunak, was also considering plans to limit judicial reviews.
>He has also said he wants to make it more difficult for lawyers to challenge the Government with “frivolous and costly immigration appeals” designed to stop illegal migrants from being deported.
>Lucy Frazer, a Tory MP and former solicitor general who is backing Mr Sunak, said: “The judicial review process is being abused by campaigners who disagree with policy set by a democratically elected government.
>“We need to act on this to stop our stretched courts being overwhelmed by political claims. Rishi Sunak’s government will act to get a grip of the increasing burden political activist lawyers are placing on the judiciary.”
>But the policy is likely to attract criticism from open justice campaigners, who could argue that the move would restrict the ability to challenge potentially unlawful decisions by ministers.
>Mr Raab has also said he hopes to reduce UK courts’ reliance on the European Court of Human Rights, using legislation returning to the House of Commons next month.
>Labour has said ministers would be better to deal with “chaos” in the courts and backlogs, rather than embark on major human rights reform.
Sounds like cultish rhetoric divorced from reality.
Calling something political or lefty doesn’t invalidate it.
> Left-wing lawyers would be blocked from launching “politically motivated” judicial reviews
Fascism, plain and simple.
Ahh yes, the courts are ‘clogged up’ and ‘overwhelmed’ because of people fighting against the government.
It’s definitely not because of the hundreds of courts the government have closed…
>“I have the greatest respect for our judiciary and the rule of law in this country, which is why I want to ~~call time on politically motivated cases being brought before our courts~~ undermine their independent decisions to allow judicial reviews that go against my party,”
The court literally has to decide if there’s a genuinely arguable case before it grants permission for the review to be heard. Sunak is saying he’ll stop judicial reviews *that the courts have determined have sufficient merit to warrant the process*.
>Left-wing lawyers in Rishi Sunak’s crosshairs as he fights politically motivated ‘lawfare’
Let me translate
*Justice is only available those who can afford it, if you can’t afford it then know your place and keep quiet*
Our culture is under attack, plain and simple. We have the rule of law and a separation between legislatirs and judiciary, as a check and balance in our democracy.
It doesn’t work like that in other countries and we don’t want to import the kind of corrupt systems that they have in other parts of the world to the UK.
By ‘politically motivated’ he means “compassionate, empathetic snd protective of hard won protections and rights” – these are the things he is at war with.
WOW. Curtailing judicial review. JUDICIAL REVIEW.
This is insane. Surely? And wholly circular. The government decides which of its actions can be legally challenged – What’s the point of JR?
“You can only challenge me if I allow it.”
The irony being, Rishi says this is taking politicization out of the courts. But it’s opposite – this is government involvement in the JR process, ergo politicizing it from the outside.
Unless I’m misunderstanding this entirely, it has to be unconstitutional. The judiciary must be independent.
I remember Patel attacked immigration lawyers after being warned by MI6 her words could cause unrest and successfully incited a stabbing at a lawyer’s office.
Incitement to violence is all well and good, if you’re a Tory of course.
So we’ve got someone who wants to send people to reeducation camps if they crticise the UK and its government and now they want to go after lawyers who launch judicial reviews.
​
HMMMMMMMM
Sounds like the way China is run. Pure fascism.