15065.1-4

House of Lords

Session 2014 - 15
Internet Publications
Other Bills before Parliament

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill
Commons Disagreements, Reasons and Amendments in Lieu

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill
Commons Disagreements, Reasons and Amendments in Lieu
[The page and line references are to HL Bill 30, the bill as first printed for the Lords.]
Clause 29
Page 29, line 36, at end insert—
“( )
No female, nor any male under the age of fifteen, may be placed in
a secure college.”
COMMONS DISAGREEMENT AND REASON
The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment No. 74 for the following reason—
74A
Because it is not appropriate to prevent the detention in secure colleges of males under the

age of 15 and females.
Clause 64
Page 64, line 35, leave out “must” and insert “may”
Page 64, line 37, leave out “not” and insert “decline to”
Page 65, line 10, leave out “must” and insert “may”
Page 65, line 13, leave out “must” and insert “may”
Page 65, line 33, leave out “must” and insert “may”
Page 65, line 40, leave out “must” and insert “may”
COMMONS DISAGREEMENT AND REASON
The Commons disagree to Lords Amendments Nos. 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 and 102 for the
following reason—
102A
Because it is appropriate to impose duties, rather than to confer discretions, on the High

HL Bill 65 55/4

2

Court and the Upper Tribunal in connection with judicial review proceedings in which it

is highly likely that the outcome for the applicant would not have been substantially

different if the conduct complained of had not occurred.
Clause 65
Page 66, line 10, after “paragraph” insert “or, notwithstanding a failure to do so, the
court in its discretion considers that it is nevertheless appropriate to grant the
applicant leave to make the application for judicial review”
Page 66, line 32, after “paragraph” insert “or, notwithstanding a failure to do so, the
tribunal in its discretion considers that it is nevertheless appropriate to grant the
applicant permission or leave to apply for relief”
COMMONS DISAGREEMENT AND REASON
The Commons disagree to Lords Amendments Nos. 103, 104, 105 and 106 for the reason
set out at No. 106A.
Clause 66
Page 67, line 1, leave out “must” and insert “may”
Page 67, line 7, leave out “must” and insert “may”
COMMONS DISAGREEMENT AND REASON
The Commons disagree to Lords Amendments Nos. 103, 104, 105 and 106 for the following
reason—
106A
Because it is appropriate to impose duties, rather than confer discretions, on the High

Court, the Upper Tribunal and the Court of Appeal in connection with information about

the financing of applications for judicial review.
Clause 67
Page 67, line 25, leave out subsections (2) to (6) and insert—
“( )
The High Court and the Court of Appeal shall have a discretion whether to
order an intervener to pay the costs of a relevant party to the proceedings,
and shall have a discretion whether to order a relevant party to the
proceedings to pay the intervener’s costs.”
COMMONS DISAGREEMENT AND AMENDMENTS IN LIEU
The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment No. 107 and propose Amendments Nos.
107A, 107B, 107C, 107D and 107E in lieu.
107A
Page 67, line 22, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

“(1)
This section applies where—

(a)
a person is granted permission to file evidence or make

representations in judicial review proceedings, and

(b)
at that time, the person is not a relevant party to the proceedings.

3

(1A)
That person is referred to in this section as an “intervener”.”
107B
Page 67, line 30, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

“(4)
On an application to the High Court or the Court of Appeal by a relevant

party to the proceedings, if the court is satisfied that a condition described

in subsection (4A) is met in a stage of the proceedings that the court deals

with, the court must order the intervener to pay any costs specified in the

application that the court considers have been incurred by the relevant

party as a result of the intervener’s involvement in that stage of the

proceedings.

(4A)
Those conditions are that—

(a)
the intervener has acted, in substance, as the sole or principal

applicant, defendant, appellant or respondent;

(b)
the intervener’s evidence and representations, taken as a whole,

have not been of significant assistance to the court;

(c)
a significant part of the intervener’s evidence and representations

relates to matters that it is not necessary for the court to consider in

order to resolve the issues that are the subject of the stage in the

proceedings;

(d)
the intervener has behaved unreasonably.”
107C
Page 67, line 44, at end insert—


“and the proceedings described in paragraphs (a) to (d) are “stages” of

judicial review proceedings.”

Page 68, line 3, leave out from beginning to “directly” in line 6 and insert—

“(a)
a person who is or has been an applicant or defendant in the

proceedings described in subsection (7)(a), (b) or (c);

(b)
a person who is or has been an appellant or respondent in the

proceedings described in subsection (7)(d);

(c)
any other person who is or has been”
107E
Page 68, line 8, at end insert—

“( )
If a person who is an intervener in judicial review proceedings becomes a

relevant party to the proceedings, the person is to be treated for the

purposes of subsections (2) and (4) as having been a relevant party, rather

than an intervener, at all times when involved in the proceedings.”

4