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
- Principle means of enforcing the rule of law
Comments
No comments have yet been made