‘Withdraw Judicial Review Bill’

Lalla said if the proposed amendment to the Judicial Review Act 2000 were to become law, its consequential effect would clearly not only be to deny justice to the socially and economically disadvantaged, but would also constitute a serious violation of the high and lofty ideals declared and affirmed in the Republican Constitution.

He continued, "The proposed legislation would appear to be oppressive and unconscionable and would seem not to be reasonably justifiable in a society that has respect for human rights."

The whole intention of the Bill is to replace Section 5 (2) (b) of the 2000 Act.

That section states, "The court may, on an application for judicial review, grant relief in accordance with this Act to a person or a group of persons if the court is satisfied that the application is justifiable in the public interest in the circumstances of the case."

The 2005 Bill seeks to accomplish by repealing the existing provision so that "the court can grant relief to a person whose interests are adversely affected by a decision."

According to Lalla, "The purport and intent of the amendment bill now before Parliament would seem to be geared towards the taking away of the rights of citizens to institute legal proceedings (individually or collectively) for judicial review against the State for a public wrong or public injury.

"It is also clear that the resultant effect of this amendment, if passed by Parliament, may not only be punitive but also an erosion of the rights of the people to seek redress against the State."

As chairman of both Commissions, Lalla faced judicial review applications from disgruntled prison, police and public officers in relation to their jobs. Lalla said the concept of public interest litigation was to provide legal representation to groups and interests who could not afford to challenge a wrong.

"The provisions of section 5 of the Judicial Review Act are therefore an effective mechanism providing checks and balances against the arbitrary and capricious decisions of any government and the exploitation of poor and unsuspecting citizens.

"Indeed, the rule of law, which is founded on the clearest principles of reason and justice, is meant not only for the affluent but also for the poor."

Lalla, who is now in private practice, said he was not clear of the rationale behind the proposed amendment.

He added, "No government should fear the institution of public interest litigation against it, bearing in mind that Government is the servant or agent of the people and, accordingly, it is expected to govern in the best interest of the people."