The Psychoactive Substance Act 2016

The Psychoactive Substance Act 2016

This paper describes the changes made by Parliament on what was originally clause (section) 50(1) of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill by the time it was finally enacted as section 84(1) of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. It further provides a description of the process of the changes, and the arguments that were put forward for and against the change.

The significant amendments that were made to the proposed legislation 50(1) of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill relates to sentencing legislation. The process was realized through a series of procedural changes under the House of the Lords and Commons.[1] The proposals included 2010 proposals for legal aid, the judicial Review Proposals for Reform, Transforming Legal Aid to deliver a mode efficient and credible system, and the 2013 Proposals for Further Reform which resulted in the current proposals for legislation. If the provision was to be enacted by Parliament a scenario that allows the executive to act improperly could be endorsed.[2] The amendments  relate to the judicial review process. The proposal required “The court must refuse judicial review if the court concludes that it is highly likely that the outcome for the applicant would not have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred”[3] Thus, in case a procedural error was made by the Minister, this would not result in a decision being rejected in the event that the decision was the same had there been no procedural error.[4] In practice, the changes would make the public bodies escape responsbility in case of unlawfu decisions, increase the costs for judicial review, and decrease the quality of public adminstartion.[5]

There were issues of principle and detail raised by legislators and others during that process. For instance, both Lords Pannick and Woolf were against the provision and moved an amendment that retained judical discretion.[6] They replaced the “must” in “must refuse to grant relief” with “may.” Moroeer,  Lord Pannick argued that the public interest needed the judges to be in a position to quash unlawful action, even when no practical difference resulted, so as to compel the administration to follow the law to the latter.[7] Persons were required to have the courts establish any legal wrong they suffered.  Thus, these were percevied as practical difficulties in terms of ascertaining the outcomes of a decision in case the unlawful action did not take place. Lord Woolf on the other hand argued that the clause 50 of the Bill in its capacity undermined the judiciary independence. In addition Lord Faulks observed that efficient decision-making was would be undermined by hurdles that did not result to a different outcome in case the original decision was reconsidered in accordance with the law.

The amendment to s50 was passed by the Lords but rejected by the House of Commons. This was followed by prolongued parliamentary battle, but both the House of the Lords as well as the House Commons refused to materialize.[8] Thus, there were issues raised which were important and needed to be considered to make sure that legislation was followed.

Bibliography

House of Lords Hansard, Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, < https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2014-10-27/debates/14102714000824/CriminalJusticeAndCourtsBill>

Legislation UK. Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, < http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/2/pdfs/ukpga_20150002_en.pdf>

Public Law Project, Parliamentary Briefing Paper Part 4 Criminal Justice & Courts Bill (Judicial Review),< http://www.publiclawproject.org.uk/data/resources/159/PLP-Parliamentary-Briefing-Paper-11-March-LONG.pdf>.

Parliament UK, Criminal Justice and Courts Bill 
Commons insistence, disagreement and amendments in lieu, < http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2014-2015/0082/15082.1-4.html>

Parliament UK, Criminal Justice and Courts Bill Part 4 — Judicial review < http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2013-2014/0169/14169.pdf>