Impact of Rule 52.5 Amendment on Access to Justice: Insights from Siddiqui v Lord Chancellor

Introduction

The case of Siddiqui, R (on the application of) v. Lord Chancellor & Ors ([2019] EWCA Civ 1040) addresses significant procedural changes in the English civil justice system, particularly concerning the amendment of Rule 52.5 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). Mr. Siddiqui challenged the removal of the automatic right to an oral hearing when permission to appeal is refused on papers, arguing that this change violates Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and breaches the common law principle of access to justice. The Court of Appeal's decision provides a comprehensive analysis of these arguments, balancing judicial efficiency against individual rights.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Siddiqui's application to appeal against the refusal of permission to apply for judicial review. The core issue revolved around the 2016 amendment to Rule 52.5 of the CPR, which eliminated the automatic right to an oral hearing after an initial paper-based refusal of permission to appeal. Mr. Siddiqui contended that this amendment infringed upon his rights under Article 6 of the ECHR and the common law right to access justice. The court, however, upheld the amendment, reasoning that the procedural change was a proportionate and necessary measure to manage the Court of Appeal's increasing workload and to reduce delays in the resolution of substantive appeals. The judge concluded that the amendment did not breach Article 6 or the common law right to access justice.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key cases and legal provisions to support its reasoning:

Hansen v Norway (2014): This European Court of Human Rights case emphasizes that Article 6 does not necessitate an oral hearing at every procedural stage but requires fair procedures overall.
R (Unison) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51: Highlighted the importance of access to justice, particularly in the context of procedural barriers like application fees.
Sengupta v Holmes [2002] EWCA Civ 1104: Demonstrated the value of oral arguments in potentially altering a judge's decision.
R (Detention Action) v First-Tier Tribunal [2015] 1 WLR 5341: Addressed the balance between administrative efficiency and fairness in tribunal procedures.

These precedents collectively informed the court's assessment of whether the Rule 52.5 amendment compromised procedural fairness or access to justice.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning centered on balancing procedural efficiency with individual rights. Key points include:

Judicial Efficiency: The Court acknowledged the substantial increase in the Court of Appeal's workload, citing a 54% rise over six years. The amendment aimed to address backlog issues by limiting oral hearings to cases where they are deemed necessary.
Proportionality: The court evaluated whether the procedural change was proportionate, considering the need to reduce delays against the potential impact on appellants' rights. It concluded that the amendment struck an appropriate balance.
Article 6 Compatibility: Referencing Hansen v Norway, the court determined that Article 6 does not require an oral hearing at every stage but ensures fairness in the overall process. The amendment did not violate this principle.
Access to Justice: The court assessed whether the amendment unduly restricted access to the appellate system. It found that the discretion to grant oral hearings where necessary maintained adequate access.

The court emphasized that while procedural changes can impact individual litigants, the broader need for an efficient judicial system justifies the amendment.

Impact

The judgment has several significant implications:

Procedural Streamlining: Affirming the Rule 52.5 amendment supports continued efforts to streamline appellate procedures and manage court workloads effectively.
Filtration Process: The decision reinforces a more stringent filtration process for appeals, potentially reducing the number of cases that proceed to oral hearings.
Litigant Considerations: Litigants must be more diligent in presenting their cases on paper, knowing that oral hearings may be scarce.
Precedent for Future Rule Changes: The judgment sets a precedent for how the courts may approach future procedural amendments, balancing efficiency with rights.

Overall, the decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to maintaining an efficient system while ensuring that procedural rights are not unduly compromised.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Rule 52.5 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Rule 52.5 governs the permission to appeal process in civil cases. Before its 2016 amendment, if a court refused permission to appeal based solely on written submissions ("on the papers"), the appellant could request an oral hearing to renew their application. The amendment removed this automatic right, giving judges discretion to grant oral hearings only when they believed it was necessary for a fair decision.

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Article 6 ensures the right to a fair trial, which includes the right to a public hearing conducted by an independent and impartial tribunal. However, it doesn't mandate an oral hearing at every procedural stage but requires that the overall process be fair.

Common Law Right of Access to Justice

This principle ensures that individuals have the opportunity to present their cases in court and seek justice without unnecessary barriers. It encompasses the ability to access legal remedies and ensures procedures are not unduly restrictive.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in Siddiqui v Lord Chancellor affirms the 2016 amendment to Rule 52.5, prioritizing judicial efficiency while upholding procedural fairness and access to justice. By dismissing the application for permission to appeal, the court underscored that the amendment does not violate Article 6 of the ECHR or the common law right of access to justice. This judgment illustrates the judiciary's role in balancing systemic efficiency with individual rights, ensuring that necessary procedural reforms do not undermine fundamental legal principles.