We thought carefully about how best to address that issue, and the original clause was straightforwardly designed to set out the position when a case is brought on a technicality—a procedural defect. For example, in a number of cases people have argued that the format of the consultation was not handled appropriately, or perhaps a Minister or official indicated that the consultation would take place in a particular form, and that was used as the basis for a judicial review. If the official promise was to hold a four-week consultation but the Government chose to hold a three-week consultation, and a judicial review was brought on the basis that we did not fulfil our promise about the format of the consultation, the frustration is that that would have made no difference to the final decision, yet the case was brought none the less. Often, the case will be struck out, but not before taxpayers’ money and huge amounts of the time of Government officials and lawyers have been spent on bringing, defending and dealing with it.
Criminal Justice and Courts Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Grayling
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 13 January 2015.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Criminal Justice and Courts Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
590 c820 
Session
2014-15
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-02-16 14:02:28 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2015-01-13/15011364000804
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2015-01-13/15011364000804
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2015-01-13/15011364000804