Results 181–200 of 980 for speaker:Lord Wolfson of Tredegar

Judicial Review and Courts Bill - Committee (1st Day): Amendment 13 (21 Feb 2022)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: There are two parts of the answer to that. First, there are, as I said earlier, many judicial reviews in which it is not “the Government” in the way that the phrase “the Government” is used. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, because the second point ties into a point I was going to come to. It is, I am afraid, a longer response than the speech which provoked it from the...

Judicial Review and Courts Bill - Committee (1st Day): Amendment 13 (21 Feb 2022)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: I think I replied to that point in the previous group. The interests of justice test is subsumed here because you can use these remedies only where there is no good reason not to do so; in other words, if there is a good reason not to do so, you cannot use the remedies. Therefore, necessarily, every time you are considering whether to use the remedies, it is in the interests of justice to do...

Judicial Review and Courts Bill - Committee (1st Day): Amendment 13 (21 Feb 2022)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: With respect, no. The noble Baroness is looking at this in a very negative way. The whole point about the music copyright case was that the prospective-only remedy was there to protect people who have relied on the regulations. One must not look at these cases with the view that you have all these people out there with claims against the Government and the prospective-only remedy insulates...

Judicial Review and Courts Bill - Committee (1st Day): Amendment 13 (21 Feb 2022)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: We all know that judicial reviews have to be brought within three months of the act. Therefore, I suggest to the noble and learned Lord that it is highly unlikely that one will have two separate courts adjudicating on the same decision. If there were separate judicial reviews, they would be consolidated.

Judicial Review and Courts Bill - Committee (1st Day): Amendment 13 (21 Feb 2022)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: The position would still be that proper case management can deal with all of this. The point that the noble and learned Lord makes is no different from the proposition that could apply now. You could have two judicial reviews where one court decides to give a quashing order and the other does not. That point is already out there, so to speak. There is nothing new conceptually added by this Bill.

Judicial Review and Courts Bill - Committee (1st Day): Amendment 13 (21 Feb 2022)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: I know that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is still recovering from my absence from the dinner, but I am sure he will provide the usual entertainment and speech that my colleagues would expect. On the wording of the new clause, there are two separate points. First: do we have statutes with presumptions? Well, of course we do. Secondly, do we have statutes which set out a list...

Judicial Review and Courts Bill - Committee (1st Day): Amendment 13 (21 Feb 2022)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: My Lords, I begin by responding to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to whom I am grateful for his characteristically kind words and his tender concern that I am replying to these matters not so much on my own and without a Leader as on my own and without any juniors. That is, I am without much support from those Peers who also take the Government Whip. I would not want to make this point...

Judicial Review and Courts Bill - Committee (1st Day): Amendment 2 (21 Feb 2022)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: My Lords, I will respond to the amendments in this group in grouping order. I start by making a point about the list of factors. The purpose of the list of factors in subsection (8) is, as I said in the previous group, to allow the court to respond flexibly in the interests of delivering justice. However, it is important that the court considers—I emphasise “considers”—whether the...

Judicial Review and Courts Bill - Committee (1st Day): Amendment 2 (21 Feb 2022)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: Yes and no, in the sense that this gets us into the argument about the presumption, because the presumption applies to only these two remedies. To that extent, the point made by the noble and learned Lord is correct: that is the nature of the presumption, which we will get to in the next group. We want the court to specifically consider whether these remedies are appropriate and to use them,...

Judicial Review and Courts Bill - Committee (1st Day): Amendment 2 (21 Feb 2022)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: First, they may not apply at all, because there may, in a particular case, not be any person who would benefit from, or has relied on, the quashing. Secondly, the court must have regard to it, but only having regard to it, the court can give it such weight as it deems appropriate. Absolutely, some of these matters may be in conflict. That, as we have heard, is nothing novel in the field of...

Judicial Review and Courts Bill - Committee (1st Day): Amendment 2 (21 Feb 2022)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I was going to come to interests of justice slightly later, but let me take the point now. I do not want to drift into the presumption, but these issues are related to an extent. If it is not in the interests of justice to make the order, there would be good reason not to do so in new subsection (9). Therefore, the noble Lord’s question answers itself....

Judicial Review and Courts Bill - Committee (1st Day): Amendment 1 (21 Feb 2022)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: If the noble and learned Lord will forgive me, I will come to precisely that point later in my speech, because it arises under the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby.

Judicial Review and Courts Bill - Committee (1st Day): Amendment 1 (21 Feb 2022)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: I will come to this point because these are two sides of the same coin. The short answer to the noble and learned Lord’s point is that it would be almost incomprehensible that a court would use a prospective order in circumstances where people have paid taxes that were necessarily unlawfully raised—so the question would not arise. It is a nice theoretical question, but it would not arise....

Judicial Review and Courts Bill - Committee (1st Day): Amendment 1 (21 Feb 2022)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: My Lords, the previous two contributors to the debate noted that they spoke on these matters with some trepidation. In responding to the amendments in this group, I declare a non-interest: unlike so many of your Lordships, I confess that I did not sit on, or even appear in, any of the various cases cited to the Committee. Therefore, with that significant handicap, I will instead start by...

Judicial Review and Courts Bill - Committee (1st Day): Motion (21 Feb 2022)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: My Lords, I beg to move.

Written Answers — Ministry of Justice: Television Licences: Fees and Charges (21 Feb 2022)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: The number of people admitted to prison for failing to pay fines in respect of the non-payment of a TV licence in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years can be viewed in the attached table. A person cannot receive a custodial sentence for TV licence evasion but can be committed to prison for wilfully refusing to pay the fine. Imprisonment is only pursued as a matter of last resort....

Written Answers — Ministry of Justice: Prisoners (17 Feb 2022)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: As at 4 February 2022, the total prison population in England and Wales was 79,623. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) publishes this information weekly through the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/prison-population-f igures-2022.

Written Answers — Ministry of Justice: Sexual Offences (17 Feb 2022)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: Where conduct amounting to rape or another serious sexual offence is alleged to have taken place before 1 May 2004, when the Sexual Offences Act 1956 was repealed by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, a prosecution could be brought (providing the evidential test is met) under the appropriate provision of the 1956 Act, as that Act made no provision for a time limit for prosecuting those offences....

Written Answers — Ministry of Justice: Slavery: Victims (17 Feb 2022)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: We are unable to comment on individual cases. The GB-wide Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (the Scheme) provides state-funded compensation to victims of violent crime who may be unable to access compensation from other routes. Payments are available for physical or psychological injuries resulting directly from a crime of violence. Compensation under the Scheme is not dependent on the...


<< < 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 > >>

Create an alert

Advanced search

Find this exact word or phrase

You can also do this from the main search box by putting exact words in quotes: like "cycling" or "hutton report"

By default, we show words related to your search term, like “cycle” and “cycles” in a search for cycling. Putting the word in quotes, like "cycling", will stop this.

Excluding these words

You can also do this from the main search box by putting a minus sign before words you don’t want: like hunting -fox

We also support a bunch of boolean search modifiers, like AND and NEAR, for precise searching.

Date range

to

You can give a start date, an end date, or both to restrict results to a particular date range. A missing end date implies the current date, and a missing start date implies the oldest date we have in the system. Dates can be entered in any format you wish, e.g. 3rd March 2007 or 17/10/1989

Person

Enter a name here to restrict results to contributions only by that person.

Section

Restrict results to a particular parliament or assembly that we cover (e.g. the Scottish Parliament), or a particular type of data within an institution, such as Commons Written Answers.

Column

If you know the actual Hansard column number of the information you are interested in (perhaps you’re looking up a paper reference), you can restrict results to that; you can also use column:123 in the main search box.