Standing:
Reason for standing = don’t want frivolous claims.
Surely requirement of arguability is better than standing for this – should be where attention
is.
s.31(3) Senior Courts Act 1981 – “sufficient interest in the matter to which their application relates”.
Law Commission recommendation = unification of standing requirement, instead of having 5
different standing requirements for different remedies.
Why?
Was under no illusion that this was a clear test that would resolve all matters, rather
argued that language of “sufficient interest” gave courts enough discretion to work
out a coherent approach to standing.
Didn’t envisage a general test – very open to possibility that what would be sufficient
in one area wouldn’t be sufficient in another.
Context Sensitivity:
- This is not surprising and is welcome.
o JR case law is very varied – safety net.
JR there for people who have no other legal route for challenging decision.
Because of this, deal with very varied plethora of cases – very varied case
law because filling the gaps.
o Would be surprising if could develop approach that captures all – random what comes
to JR and what to tribunals.
Little systematic oversight of tribunals, especially in which cases should go
to tribunals and which go to JR, depends on particular legislative framework
and rights of appeal.
E.g., a lot of immigration cases go through tribunals – BUT – still no right to
appeal against a decision to detain a person in an immigration centre, have to
go to JR.
- Parole Board:
o R (DSD) v Parole Board (Warboys case) – taxi-cab rapist.
Argued that parole board hadn’t considered that there were other victims for
which he hadn’t been prosecuted.
Courts happy to assume that victims of his crimes have standing but the
Mayor of London did not.
o R (McCourt) v Parole Board – release of convicted murderer who continued to refuse
to disclose location of victim’s body – case brought by mother of victim and a
number of MPs promoting a law regarding release of prisoners who refuse to disclose
location of victims’ bodies.
Court holds that family members had standing but MPs did not.
Attempt to pinpoint approach to standing – standing will be limited to the
Secretary of State who can represent public interest, victims, and family
members of deceased victims.
Far from open system of standing – parole board is shaping what deemed to
be sufficient interest.
o Why the narrow approach?
Concern on impact on prisoners – if anyone can seek JR of these decisions,
prisoners who are told they can be released are then left in prison for longer
periods while this is reviewed – information about them will be put before the
court and the public without their consent.
The MPs were promoting a Bill before Parliament – trying to draw attention
to Bill by bringing claim.
Why not allowed in McCourt – parole release can be very political.
Reason for standing = don’t want frivolous claims.
Surely requirement of arguability is better than standing for this – should be where attention
is.
s.31(3) Senior Courts Act 1981 – “sufficient interest in the matter to which their application relates”.
Law Commission recommendation = unification of standing requirement, instead of having 5
different standing requirements for different remedies.
Why?
Was under no illusion that this was a clear test that would resolve all matters, rather
argued that language of “sufficient interest” gave courts enough discretion to work
out a coherent approach to standing.
Didn’t envisage a general test – very open to possibility that what would be sufficient
in one area wouldn’t be sufficient in another.
Context Sensitivity:
- This is not surprising and is welcome.
o JR case law is very varied – safety net.
JR there for people who have no other legal route for challenging decision.
Because of this, deal with very varied plethora of cases – very varied case
law because filling the gaps.
o Would be surprising if could develop approach that captures all – random what comes
to JR and what to tribunals.
Little systematic oversight of tribunals, especially in which cases should go
to tribunals and which go to JR, depends on particular legislative framework
and rights of appeal.
E.g., a lot of immigration cases go through tribunals – BUT – still no right to
appeal against a decision to detain a person in an immigration centre, have to
go to JR.
- Parole Board:
o R (DSD) v Parole Board (Warboys case) – taxi-cab rapist.
Argued that parole board hadn’t considered that there were other victims for
which he hadn’t been prosecuted.
Courts happy to assume that victims of his crimes have standing but the
Mayor of London did not.
o R (McCourt) v Parole Board – release of convicted murderer who continued to refuse
to disclose location of victim’s body – case brought by mother of victim and a
number of MPs promoting a law regarding release of prisoners who refuse to disclose
location of victims’ bodies.
Court holds that family members had standing but MPs did not.
Attempt to pinpoint approach to standing – standing will be limited to the
Secretary of State who can represent public interest, victims, and family
members of deceased victims.
Far from open system of standing – parole board is shaping what deemed to
be sufficient interest.
o Why the narrow approach?
Concern on impact on prisoners – if anyone can seek JR of these decisions,
prisoners who are told they can be released are then left in prison for longer
periods while this is reviewed – information about them will be put before the
court and the public without their consent.
The MPs were promoting a Bill before Parliament – trying to draw attention
to Bill by bringing claim.
Why not allowed in McCourt – parole release can be very political.
