PL 14-19 18/19 Judicial review - some background points ( :bulb:Why is JR…
PL 14-19 18/19 Judicial review - some background points
Mainly court orders (quashing order/prohibitory order/ mandatory order/declaration/injunction
Damages: possible but unusual
i.e.: what are the preliminary requirements which must be satisfied before a substantive application for the judicial review of a decision can be heard?
Main grounds of JR
(of the decision making process)
(need for govt to
act fairly in accordance with proper procedure)
Why is JR important in a
JR satisfies rule of law requirements in various ways - e.g. generous rules on standing - courts are increasingly accepting challenges from a range of interested parties; courts are being less strict about amenability: expansion of scope of JR to bodies that aren't purely 'public'; disregarding of full ouster clauses.
Also upholds interests of state/general public interest (i.e. general executive efficiency) ; achieves through v tight time limits; and arguably through procedural exclusivity (though courts are more flexible now).
- courts are upholding the will of Parliament by making sure gov't acts in accordance with Parl's wishes
- courts ensure everyone, including the executive, acts according to the law
Rule of Law
in action' - ensures the executive acts in accordance with the law - holding the executive to account
What is JR?
What are the limitations of JR?
A number of preliminary requirements must be met in order for JR to proceed
Judiciary may only review the validity of the decision/process - may not assess the merits of the decision
(Limitations ensure that JR is compliant with SoP; PSov)
JR is one part of administrative law. More and more governmental agencies exist to deal with a variety of areas: JR is an area of law that has greatly expanded with the expansion of government.
The mechanism by which the judiciary ensures - by scrutinising the actions of public authorities & officials) that the executive acts within powers it has been granted by Parliament - that decisions have been made in the correct way/that the relevant powers have not been exceeded/abused
: the procedure allows the courts to look at whether a decision has been made
according to law (i.e. the courts are not looking at the
of the decision)