division_name: Judicial Review and Courts Bill &#8212; New Clause 4 - Publicly funded legal representation for bereaved people at inquests
motion: <p class="indent" pid="e884.6/60" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;including, but not limited to, the interests and expectations of a claimant in receiving a timely remedy&#8221;.</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="e884.6/63" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;which are to be identified by the defendant&#8221;.</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="e884.6/66" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;or proposed to be taken&#8221;.</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="e888.0/5" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;I do not in particular accept the distinction which he drew between democratic institutions and the courts. It is of course true that the judges in this country are not elected and are not  answerable to Parliament. It is also of course true&#8230;that Parliament, the executive and the courts have different functions. But the function of independent judges charged to interpret and apply the law is universally recognised as a cardinal feature of the modern democratic state, a cornerstone of the rule of law itself. The Attorney General is fully entitled to insist on the proper limits of judicial authority, but he is wrong to stigmatise judicial decision-making as in some way undemocratic.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="e888.0/7" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;judicial review is of fundamental constitutional importance to the rule of law, the accountability of public bodies and the government in particular, access to justice and the protection of human rights and that limitations on access to judicial review should only be imposed where strictly necessary and proportionate.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="e888.0/20" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;in bad faith, or&#8230;in fundamental breach of the principles of natural justice.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="e893.1/2" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, that Parliament&#8230; has&#8230; the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="e894.0/5" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;a very serious attack on some fundamentals of the constitution.&#8221;&#8211;&#8211;[Official Report, Judicial Review and Courts Public Bill Committee, <phrase class="date" code="2022-11-02">2 November</phrase> 2021; c. 15.]</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="e895.1/3" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;It is the proper function of the Courts to stop governments exceeding or abusing their legal powers.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="e895.2/4" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;those who do lose out&#8230;are more likely to have particular protected characteristics, for example in respect of race and/or religion or belief.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="e899.1/5" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;In asylum cases, fundamental human rights are in play, often including the right to life and the right not to be subjected to torture.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="e901.0/4" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;not guarantee that an individual would receive an effective remedy for a violation of their human rights.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="e901.0/6" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;as it amounts to an unnecessary&#8230;intrusion into judicial remedial discretion.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="e901.0/11" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;introduce procedural reforms, such as changes to the time-limits for bringing Cart judicial review, and assess their impact, before pursuing the &#8216;nuclear option&#8217; of ousting judicial review from Cart cases.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="e901.0/13" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;every effort must be made&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="e901.0/15" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;make the best possible decisions when cases are before them&#8221;.</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="e901.0/18" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;We are concerned by the Government&#8217;s indication that the ouster clause designed to reverse Cart will be replicated in other legislation&#8221;.</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="e902.0/6" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;tip the scales of law in favour of the powerful.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="e903.1/6" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;Being able to challenge those in power when they get things wrong is at the heart of our democracy.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="e906.0/8" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;care always has to be taken so as not to render the Court&#8217;s&#8221;&#8212;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="e906.0/10" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;jurisdiction in judicial review ineffective&#8221;,</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="e906.0/12" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;be in breach of the Acts of Union&#8221;.</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="e910.0/9" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;would, as a matter of substance, offer adequate redress in relation to the relevant defect&#8221;,</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="e910.0/11" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;it sees good reason not to do so.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="e910.0/13" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;the interests or expectations of persons who would benefit from the quashing&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="e910.0/15" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;any other matter that appears to the court to be relevant.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="e912.3/4" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;fundamental breach of the principles of natural justice&#8221;.</p>