How do you decide what is in the public interest? Just ask the government. That, apparently, is UK Justice Secretary Chris Grayling’s view in his latest proposals to curb judicial review.
There have been too many judicial reviews in the public interest, is what his argument amounts to. In the latest consultation on curbing JRs he says: “The concern is based on the principle that Parliament and the elected Government are best placed to determine what is in the public interest.” It doesn’t need judges, organisations or even ordinary people to do the job for them. “L’intérêt public, c’est moi”.
Among the matters in the public interest that Grayling draws attention to, one assumes because he would rather not have seen them brought to court, was an issue of whether Taliban suspects should have been transferred from the British authorities in Afghanistan to the Afghan government – putting them at risk of severe abuse. Grayling complains that their case was brought by a peace activist, Maya Evans, who was not a member of the Taliban nor a prisoner in Afghanistan – and so had no direct interest in the matter at all.
The judge in the case allowed her to bring it (in other words gave her standing) because of her expertise in such issues of human rights and the fact that Britain’s treatment of prisoners abroad is a matter of public interest.
But that is not good enough for Grayling. He suggests only people with a “direct” interest be allowed to bring such cases – the Taliban prisoners themselves perhaps. Read the rest of this entry