Interventions in Judicial Review Proceedings

Abstract

Abstract This chapter examines the growth and value of interventions in judicial proceedings. It argues the exponential growth in interventions is largely attributable not to the CPR, but the introduction of the Human Rights Act. The decision whether or not to allow an intervention, and then whether to give any weight to its content is wholly discretionary. Interventions are part of a wider trend to an increasingly inquisitorial jurisdiction, beyond the adversarial contest between the parties. Two reasons for the growth in interventions are courts’ willingness to take into account broader policy considerations in judicial review proceedings, and relatedly the willingness of the courts to hear international law and comparative law arguments and place weight on them. The Supreme Court, in particular, has encouraged interventions in recent years, and Baroness Hale has made clear in writing how useful she finds them. Although interveners are now subject to the risk of adverse costs orders under the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 for interventions deemed to be unhelpful, to date these provisions do not appear to have been applied, which suggests that that this part of the Government’s efforts to discourage interveners has been unsuccessful.