Judicial Review

  • Created by: jesskeayy
  • Created on: 05-05-19 18:14
View mindmap
  • Judicial Review
    • Principle means of enforcing the rule of law
      • Enables people to action of public authorities on the grounds that authorities have misunderstood, exceeded or abused their legal powers
      • Imposes legal accountability on public authorities, requiring them to justify legality of their actions to the courts
    • Grounds for review:
      • Illegality, irrationality, proportionality and procedural improprietry
    • Mostly concerned with legality of executive action, as there are many restrictions on what the courts can investigate
    • In England and Wales, judicial review claims are dealt with by the Administrative Court (QB High Court)
    • Claims available: 1. legislation hasn't been complied with.
      • 2. requirements of common law haven't been followed- e.g. way in which discretionary powers are exercised
      • 3. breach of s.6 HRA 1998, requiring compliance with convention rights in the act
      • 4. breach of requirement imposed by EU legislation
    • Application for review governed by The Rules of the Supreme Court, Order 53. Authority- s.31 Supreme Court ACT 1981
      • Order 53 replaced by s.54 of Civil Procedure Rules, governing judicial review procedures
    • Judicial review- focusses on relationship between parliamentary sovereignty and rule of law
      • Argued that it is for judges to only give force to parliament's intentions, rather than reviewing them
    • Purpose is to ensure that public bodies are not exceeding powers conferred by parliament- ultra vires
      • Judges play a crucial role in the democratic process, by ensuring public bodies act within powers conferred, even though they aren't elected
    • Criticised given that as judicial review is developed through judge-made decisions, it's unrealistic that they've been driven by PI
    • Jackson v Attorney General [2005] J claimed Hunting Act 2004 was unlawful, as it hadn't been passed through HOL. Claim failed
    • If a claim succeeds, it will go back to the original department, for the decision-maker to make a fresh decision
    • Permission: must persuade judge 1. claim made within time limits. 2. claimant has sufficient interest in case. 3. avenues of redress have been exhausted
    • R v Inspectorate of Pollution, ex parte Greenpeace:
      • Greenpeace objected Inspectors authorisation to discharge waste from nuclear site in Cumbria. GP had standing to bring the case, claim failed as it was not lawful on merit


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Public Law resources »