Judicial Review!

Judicial Review is a part of administrative law that is concerned with the composition, powers and procedures of the executive government, public bodies and officials.

What is the significance?

• Regulates bodies to ensure they are acting intra vires (within the powers) and identifies bodies acting ultra vires (beyond the powers).
• Prevents bodies from abusing power - prevents tyranny and arbitrary.
• Achieves natural justice.
• Upholds the rule of law.

There are no special review courts in the UK legal system but there are special procedures that is formed of common law and statute requirements - Rules of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Act 1981.

JUDICIAL REVIEW IS NOT AN APPEAL PROCESS!!!

This is known as a 'Pre-action Protocol'. This aims to set out a good code of practice and steps that parties should follow - Parpworth N, Constitutional and Administrative Law, (9th edn, Pearson 2016) 378.

The claimaint sends a letter to the defendant identifying the issues of the dispute, decisions, summary of facts and other relevant information. This seeks to avoid litigation.

The defendant is given 14 days to respond to the letter. This letter may contain a new decision, a fuller explanation, any others points of dispute, any documents requested and whether they accept the interim.

If a resolution is not found at this stage, an application for judicial review may be made.

Order 53 of the Supreme Court Rules.

Permission is needed to apply for Judicial Review. This is to filter out vexatious claims.

An application for leave must be made in parte, as of Order 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

The claim must be served using a N461 form within 7 days of the issue - Part 54(7) of te Civil Procedure Rules.

Section 31(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 - the claimant must have 'standing' - this is sufficient interest in the issue at hand.

Lord Scarman claims that standing "prevents abuse from busy bodies, cranks and mischief makers".

Case: R v Secretary of State for Environment ex parte Rose Theatre Trust Company LTD 1990.

Part 54(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules - a claim must be filed a) promptly; and b) in any event, no later than 3 months from when the grounds for a claim first arose.

Section 31(6) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 - any undue delay in making the application allows the courts to refuse leave or any relief sought.

If a statute states different from this than that goes.

Application for Judicial Review is discretionary of the courts.

Time is short to prevent vexatious claims.

• Individuals - interests must be personally affected or the interests of society as a whole.
  Cases: Binks Case, Hurley v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills 2012, R v Secretary of State for foreign and commonwealth affairs 1994.
• Groups - interests of the members of society as a whole.
  Cases: R v Secretary of State for Environment ex parte Green Peace LTD 1994.
• Local Government, Police and Public Bodies - interests of society as a whole.
  Cases: R v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Nottinghamshire County Council
• Non-Government bodies that perform public law matters -
  Cases: R v Panel on Takeovers and Mergers ex parte Datafin 1987.

Human Rights Act 1998, section 57 - Only a victim of a public body can apply for judicial review.

O'Reilly v Mackman - exclusivity principle - judicial review is only available for public bodies dealing with public law matters. The court must make a distinction between private law and public law matters.

Lord Diplock - "there are three areas for judicial review - illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety".

• Illegality - Lord Diplock "the decision-makers must understand correctly the law that regulates the decision-making power and give effect to it".
  Ultra vires (beyond powers allowed of given) - Case: R v Secretary of State for the Home Secretary ex parte Leech, R v Fulham Corporation 1921.
  Wrongful delegation of powers - case: Allingham and others v Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries 1948
  Abuse of direction.
  Acting in excess of one's jurisdiction.
• Irrationality - Lord Diplock "a decision that is so outrageous in its defiance of logic and of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who put their mind to it would come to that".
  Proportionality - assumed that administrative action should not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the desired result. If it does, it is disproportionate and therefore, irrational.
  Case: Associated Provinical Picture House v Wednesbury Corporation 1948.
  
• Procedural Impropriety - statutory or common law procedures were not followed.
  Statute requirements are set out specifically in that statute, common law requirements are set out by the rules of natural justice:
  Audi alteram partem - right to a fair hearing - case: Ridge v Baldwin.
  Nemo judex in causa sua - cannot be a judge in your own cause - case: Dimes v Grand Junction Canal 1852, R v Bow Street Magistrates and Others ex parte Pinochet Ugarte 1999
  Legitimate expectation - if a person is led to believe they are eligable for something, they are entitled to have what they were led to believe.

• Prerogative Orders -
  Quashing Order - courts quash the unlawful decision
  Mandatory Order - compelled to act in a certain way
  Prohibitory Order - prevents a body acting that way again
• Declaration Orders
• Interim Order
• Substituting Order