We had suggested a judicial review of the police/medical/Home Office decision which various police forces have decided to apply, based on the 'Scottish Experience' and no effective English/Welsh opposition. I received this on another item of interest, Press Freedom. The process is set out and the reason why a judicial review was allowed is based on the possibility that a challenge to a public body has a chance of success. It is really the only effective way to hold a public body to account. Here, individuals are seeking the judicial review and prepared (no doubt with suppoprt) to underwrite it.
Victims of press abuse Christopher Jefferies, Kate and Gerry McCann, and Jacqui Hames, and investigative journalism website Byline, are taking the Government to court over the cancellation of the second half of the Leveson Inquiry.
Last month the High Court officially gave the go ahead for a judicial review to take place. In other words, a judge found that the case would have a reasonable chance of success.
But what exactly is a judicial review? And on what grounds has this case been brought?
Judicial reviews are a mechanism by which the legal system can scrutinise decisions made by public bodies and the government to ensure the lawfulness of a decision. Rather than review the rights and wrongs of the decision made, the Court’s role is to ensure that it was made in the ‘right way’.
This judicial review of the decision to cancel Leveson Part Two has been sought under several grounds.The most significant being that cancelling this public inquiry was contrary to a substantive legitimate expectation held by the claimants, victims of press abuse.
The evidence for this includes the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, making a commitment to complete the second half of the Inquiry on the day the Leveson Report (Part One) was published.
And the irrational decision to reject the views of the Chairman of the Inquiry, Sir Brian Leveson, who told ministers he "fundamentally disagrees" with scrapping the second half of the Leveson Inquiry.
It would be nice to know, as Members, why the QC thought the conditions for judicial review were not met - maybe in a confidential e-mail to all members but to have no information about this decision suggests too convenient a loss of what seems to be a convincing case of abuse of public office.
So I ask BASC as a member to publish the reasoning why a Judicial Review would have failed in these circumstances, to satisfy Members of their supportive intent. Otherwise it is confirmed as a case of "we will all do as we (BASC) say we should and you (Members) must simply accept all that we say.
If others agree I will transmit this to BASC as a formal Member request and ask for it to be placed on the Council agenda for the next meeting - time for some answers I feel.
Victims of press abuse Christopher Jefferies, Kate and Gerry McCann, and Jacqui Hames, and investigative journalism website Byline, are taking the Government to court over the cancellation of the second half of the Leveson Inquiry.
Last month the High Court officially gave the go ahead for a judicial review to take place. In other words, a judge found that the case would have a reasonable chance of success.
But what exactly is a judicial review? And on what grounds has this case been brought?
Judicial reviews are a mechanism by which the legal system can scrutinise decisions made by public bodies and the government to ensure the lawfulness of a decision. Rather than review the rights and wrongs of the decision made, the Court’s role is to ensure that it was made in the ‘right way’.
This judicial review of the decision to cancel Leveson Part Two has been sought under several grounds.The most significant being that cancelling this public inquiry was contrary to a substantive legitimate expectation held by the claimants, victims of press abuse.
The evidence for this includes the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, making a commitment to complete the second half of the Inquiry on the day the Leveson Report (Part One) was published.
And the irrational decision to reject the views of the Chairman of the Inquiry, Sir Brian Leveson, who told ministers he "fundamentally disagrees" with scrapping the second half of the Leveson Inquiry.
It would be nice to know, as Members, why the QC thought the conditions for judicial review were not met - maybe in a confidential e-mail to all members but to have no information about this decision suggests too convenient a loss of what seems to be a convincing case of abuse of public office.
So I ask BASC as a member to publish the reasoning why a Judicial Review would have failed in these circumstances, to satisfy Members of their supportive intent. Otherwise it is confirmed as a case of "we will all do as we (BASC) say we should and you (Members) must simply accept all that we say.
If others agree I will transmit this to BASC as a formal Member request and ask for it to be placed on the Council agenda for the next meeting - time for some answers I feel.