Judicial review has been described by Liberty as ‘a crucial tool which allows ordinary people to challenge decisions by the authorities – either because they’re unlawful, irrational, or made in the wrong way’. This tool has come under attack from the Government. In this post, I look at the House of Commons debate on 1 December when House of Lords amendments to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill were considered.
At times, the process referred to a ‘ping pong’ (or ‘consideration of amendments’) can be rather like a showdown in a western movie. Parliament’s description of ‘Ping Pong’ states that – ‘When a bill has passed through third reading in both Houses it is returned to the first House (where it started) for any amendments made by the second House to be considered.’ A bill may go back and forth between each House until both Houses reach agreement on the exact wording of the bill.
