Judicial review - Nature and purpose of judicial review

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising from the use of the content on this page. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Overview

Judicial review plays a vital role in public law, ensuring government actions are legal and proper. SQE1 FLK1 exam candidates need a solid understanding of judicial review, as it involves key principles of administrative law and constitutional safeguards. This article examines the essence, purpose, and important legal aspects of judicial review, highlighting its function in upholding the rule of law and holding governments accountable.

The Nature of Judicial Review

Judicial review allows courts to examine the legality of decisions made by public authorities such as government departments and local councils. It targets the lawfulness of how decisions are made, rather than their outcomes.

Main features of judicial review include:

  1. Supervisory role: Courts oversee public bodies to ensure they act within legal limits and follow correct procedures.

  2. Public law remedy: Different from private law claims, judicial review addresses public law issues.

  3. Discretionary relief: Even when illegality is found, the court may choose whether to grant remedies.

  4. Grounds for challenge: Based primarily on illegality, irrationality, and procedural errors.

  5. Timeliness: Claims should be filed promptly, generally within three months of the decision.

The Purpose of Judicial Review

Judicial review aims to uphold the rule of law and safeguard individual rights from power abuses by public authorities. It achieves this through several objectives:

  1. Ensuring legality: It checks that public bodies do not act beyond their legal limits.

  2. Promoting accountability: By allowing judicial scrutiny of public decisions, decision-makers are held responsible.

  3. Protecting individual rights: Provides a way for individuals to challenge decisions that might infringe on their rights.

  4. Maintaining consistency: Supports uniform decision-making across various public bodies.

  5. Developing legal principles: Judicial decisions contribute to the evolution of administrative law.

  6. Upholding constitutional values: Plays a role in preserving the separation of powers within the constitutional setup.

Key Legal Concepts in Judicial Review

Illegality

Illegality arises when a public authority acts outside its legal powers or doesn’t fulfill a legal duty. This includes:

  1. Error of law: Misinterpretation or misapplication of applicable law.

  2. Acting beyond authority: Actions taken outside the authority's legal power.

  3. Improper purpose: Using powers for unintended purposes.

  4. Considering wrong factors: Ignoring relevant factors or considering irrelevant ones.

Example: In R v Home Secretary ex parte Fire Brigades Union [1995], the decision to implement a new compensation scheme was declared illegal for nullifying a statutory scheme without proper authority.

Irrationality (Wednesbury Unreasonableness)

Irrationality involves decisions so unreasonable that no rational authority would make them, established in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948].

  • Decisions must be extremely unreasonable.
  • Courts should not replace the decision-maker's judgment with their own.
  • The test has evolved to include proportionality in human rights cases.

Example: In R v Lord Saville of Newdigate, ex parte A [1999], a decision to compel testimonies in a risky location was deemed irrational.

Procedural Impropriety

Procedural impropriety occurs when public authorities ignore proper procedures or natural justice:

  1. Breach of natural justice: Fair hearing rights and absence of bias.

  2. Ignoring statutory procedures: Not following legally prescribed steps.

  3. Legitimate expectation: Failing to meet expectations set by policies or conduct.

Example: In R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [1994], not disclosing reasons in tariff setting was found improper.

Influence of the Human Rights Act 1998

The Human Rights Act 1998 has transformed judicial review by integrating European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) standards:

  1. Expanded review grounds: Decisions can be challenged for ECHR violations.

  2. Proportionality test: A more detailed test in human rights cases.

  3. Positive duties: Authorities must actively protect ECHR rights.

  4. Interpretation: Courts should interpret laws to align with ECHR rights.

R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] illustrates this, applying a stricter analysis to prison search policies concerning ECHR rights.

Contemporary Issues and Developments

Current topics in judicial review relevant for SQE1 FLK1 candidates include:

  1. Post-Brexit changes: Debates over interpreting retained EU law and the extent of ministerial authority.

  2. Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022: Introduces reforms like suspended quashing orders to streamline processes.

  3. Technological challenges: AI use in decision-making raises transparency and accountability issues.

  4. Standing in public interest cases: Ongoing discussions on who can bring cases, especially in environmental matters.

  5. Costs and justice access: Recent changes aim to manage litigation costs and improve access to justice.

Conclusion

Judicial review is essential for maintaining the rule of law and government accountability in the UK. Its focus on legal processes, rather than decision merits, sets it apart from appeals. Beyond error correction, it is a key protector of democratic principles and individual rights.

Top considerations for the SQE1 FLK1 exam are:

  1. The main grounds: illegality, irrationality, and procedural mishaps.
  2. The impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on judicial review scope.
  3. Changes due to Brexit and tech advancements.
  4. Balancing judicial oversight and public authority independence.
  5. Understanding theoretical principles and practical case law applications.

A solid understanding of judicial review aids candidates not only in exams but also in engaging with the complex relationship between law, governance, and rights throughout their legal careers.