This Government has already made a number of significant changes to the workings of our Criminal Justice System and the role of organisations, currently outside of the Political domain such as charities to engage in debate during the process of elections. They are now embarked on another power grab under the cover of their Criminal Justice and Courts Bill.

The most recent legislation known as the Lobbying (or Gagging) Act potentially limits the involvement of organisations such as charities to participate in public debate in the year before an election. If their views and campaigning activities align themselves too closely with one set of candidates, even where there is no evidence of support for them, the risk averse charities and organisations may feel forced to shut up, or put up and register as being politically active, and use their limited funds to account for their time and money spent on the campaign. This means that charities which campaign for the Government to improved the benefits system so that foodbanks are not in so much demand, could be seen to be aligning themselves with Labour and the Green Party and against the Coalition Parties which have both shown themselves to be wilfully ignorant of the impact of these changes.

The latest set of changes relate to the ability of organisations to challenge the state whilst protected from being crushed by the overpowering resources of a state, that can withhold funding from people on benefits for weeks on end yet spend £40,000 on biscuit allowances for just one Government Department. Most Charities will never have heard of a Protective Cost Order, but they enable organisations such as Law Centres to challenge the State on its decisions and actions “PCOs were originally given in “public interest” cases brought by applicants who could satisfy the court that, among other things, they had no private interest in the outcome of the proceedings. Their corresponding aim was to ensure that public bodies did not escape judicial review just because an applicant might be unable to meet a costs order “against” in the event of the application for judicial review being dismissed. A PCO would thus limit the costs liabilities of an applicant where the court was of the view that the issues to be raised were of a wider public interest and that they should for that reason be heard. The emphasis, has therefore been on tracking possible government illegality rather than allowing it go unchallenged.” (source Public Interest in UK Courts)

According to Sarah Fitzpatrick of Berwin Leighton Paisner “The legislation also proposes changes relating to protective costs orders (PCOs). PCOs will only be able to be made if permission has been granted for Judicial Review so claimants will have to bear their own costs during the permission stage of the application.” There is more information on the impact of the reforms to Protective Custody Orders in this Third Sector piece.

We have a Government that told us it would deal with Lobbying yet has put at risk the ability of charities to engage in public debate, and is now using the need to cut costs from the Criminal Justice System as an excuse to prevent charities from challenging public bodies. This has come from a Government that claims it is committed to empowering local communities and reducing the size (and by implication the power) of the State. It is too late to block part two of the Lobbying Bill which protects our Political Parties from groups that might want to turn elections into debates on policy, rather than focus on personalities or the colour of rosettes and sadly there are no indications that a future Labour Government will abolish it. Now we have another Bill that is destined to protect the State at the expense of the people who are damaged by its rules and policies. Whilst the Government did not listen to us on the Gagging Bill, we need to redouble our efforts in trying to protect Protective Custody Orders.