Mr. Paul Hogan:

There are strong reasons for that. In providing a costs scheme whereby everybody is guaranteed access to justice in respect of a judicial review and to have their costs paid by the State, it is necessary for a person benefiting from that to be clearly identifiable and named. A "legal personality" is the term used. For that reason, it is almost like a balancing measure or mechanism. If such a scheme is being introduced, we need to clarify the standing rights, as they are called. The Aarhus Convention does not prevent that from happening, and the entire convention is subject to national laws and limitations, in adherence to the overall spirit of it. Some states will have far more onerous standing rights than we propose in this instance. It is a necessary quid pro quo to allow people that essential free access to justice.