A cut out and keep guide to judicial review

1 March 2011 by

The coalition government wants to reduce the national deficit by billions, but is facing regular court challenges against its decisions to cut budgets. Some have been successful, such as the challenge to the cancellation of a school building programme and to London Councils’ decision to cut the London boroughs’ grants scheme budget — and there are more to come.

It is important to understand the basis on which individuals can challenge decisions that affect them, why unelected judges have the power to alter decisions of elected officials, and how public authorities can avoid being vulnerable to successful challenges in future. The key is accountability.

Decisions of public authorities can be challenged in the courts by way of “judicial review”: a process by which legislative and executive decisions are reviewed by judges to ensure that they are lawful. The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that public authorities don’t go beyond the powers given to them by parliament and that they don’t abuse those powers.

In the past courts have often proved deferential for fear of breaching the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. But judges have more recently been active in holding government to account, and have sought to protect fundamental rights in a number of key judgments. Judicial powers were bolstered by the introduction of the Human Rights Act in 2000, which prohibits public authorities from breaching fundamental rights.

If you are looking to challenge a decision, there are some legal hurdles to overcome.

The decision must have been made by a public authority – this is not always obvious, for example, the justice ministry is a public authority, but the Football Association is not.

In addition, you must have “standing“; that is, you must have sufficient interest in the decision – so an individual could challenge a decision to close a local library which she often uses. Sometimes pressure groups can get involved, too, for example, Greenpeace was allowed tochallenge a decision relating to a nuclear power station as it had members living in the area.

Finally, decisions have to be challenged promptly and certainly within three months. This rule is strictly enforced as it is seen as necessary to allow public authorities to carry out their functions without ongoing fear of litigation.

Once a review is under way, there are three main grounds on which a decision can be challenged.

• First, on the basis that it was illegal – this usually means that the decision maker has acted beyond the powers granted to it by parliament, or has misunderstood the law.

• Second, because it was irrational – this is difficult to establish, it is not enough to show that a decision was unreasonable, it must be sooutrageous that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question could have arrived at it; a decision could also bedisproportionate to the end sought, usually in the context of human rights or European Community law.

• Third, the decision may have been procedurally unfair – a common example is when decision makers fail to carry out an adequate public consultation, as was the case in relation to the Building Schools for the Future decision.

If a decision is successfully challenged (pdf), a court will usually quash it, which makes it void and unenforceable. It can also force an authority to remake the decision, even if that means making the same decision, or prohibit an authority from acting in a particular way. Damages are sometimes available, too.

This article first appeared on Guardian.co.uk

Related posts

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: