The power of unelected judges – Part 1 of 2

30 May 2011 by

Two court decisions have upset UK governments this week. One is being appealed in the normal way by the Secretary of State for Education, but the other may lead to a fundamental rethink of the Scottish justice system. As a Bank Holiday special, this post is split into 2 parts.

Starting with the Sharon Shoesmith decision, which has been helpfully summarised by Obiter J. The Spectator reports that the Secretary of State for education Michael Gove intends to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. The reported grounds of that appeal, gleaned from “Whitehall sources”, are interesting. Although Gove “recognises that Balls blundered in the way he dismissed her“,

he also believes that there are important constitutional principles at sake in this case about how Ministers make important and urgent decisions and what the role of the courts is in challenging such decisions. Gove wants the Supreme Court to consider these issues because of the huge importance of judicial reviews, which are being used repeatedly by opponents of the government to try and stymie its agenda.

Shoesmith was dismissed by Haringey Council following the fall-out over the Baby Peter case. The Court of Appeal overturned the decision of Mr Justice Foskett in the High Court to find that the sacking, a decision which had effectively been taken directly by the Secretary of State himself, had been procedurally unfair. Shoesmith had been “simply and summarily scapegoated“.

Judicial review is a means by which citizens can challenge the decisions of public bodies – for more, see my cut out and keep guide. It is very difficult to succeed, as it is not enough to show a decision was unreasonable; it has to have been irrational, illegal or procedurally unfair.

If the Spectator quote is correct, Gove may have in mind the decision of the High Court in February (see my post) that the cancellation of new school buildings in six areas was unlawful. A number of other decisions have been successfully challenged in the courts, including most recently the decision to withdraw funding for legal advice centres in Birmingham. This will undoubtedly be frustrating for those in central government attempting to implement the Coalition’s policy agenda.

Why is this decision particularly frustrating? Leaving aside the public money which will be spent paying Shoesmith’s considerable damages, the court is challenging a minister’s power to make a quick decision – in this case, to sack a senior public servant – in respect of a matter of great public importance. The court made a strong statement that executive power would not go unchecked, even in matters where the public wanted urgent action. Lord Justice Maurice Kay accepted that “the context – the protection of vulnerable children – is important and, together with a degree of urgency may impact on the requirement of procedural fairness“. However, on the other hand

Ms Shoesmith was the holder of a statutory office who was very highly thought of in Haringey… and the Secretary of State must have realised that his decisions would be likely to have catastrophic consequences for her.

And, just because “as a matter of policy one individual with ultimate responsibility and accountability in relation to children’s services” does not mean that “that person is to be denied the protections that have long been accorded to responsible and accountable office-holders.” The strongest statement of principle came in paragraph 66:

I find it a deeply unattractive proposition that the mere juxtaposition of a state of affairs and a person who is “accountable” should mean that there is nothing that that person might say which could conceivably explain, excuse or mitigate her predicament. “Accountability” is not synonymous with “Heads must roll”

It is not hard to see why this statement might frustrate a minister. It is unusual to hear a current minister defending his predecessor’s decision, but Gove would probably like to think in a child protection scandal involving significant public pressure for urgent action, he would be relatively free to act.

However, the court was not challenging the secretary of state’s power to remove a public official from their role, but rather the power to do it summarily and without sufficient consideration. As the court pointed out, all that would have been required to comply with fairness requirements would have been a short delay.

Legal blogger Obiter J has posted on the issue and argues:

It seems that the present government is concerned to restrict judicial review. Here we are in dangerous territory. Surely, the most important constitutional point is that Ministers must act in accordance with law.

If the case does reach the supreme court, it seems unlikely that the court will curtail its own powers to challenge executive decisions. However, it is also possible that by that time the matter will be less about constitutional principle and more narrowly about the procedural requirements under the Education Act 1996.

Part 2 of this post can be read here

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts


  1. Libertarian says:

    “being used repeatedly by opponents of the government to try and [sic: try “to”!] stymie its agenda.”

    Since the House of Lords is a mere emasculated rump of placemen with neither a pair of testicles nor a set of teeth to share between them, surely the judiciary is the only route open to curb the arbitrary despotism of the mono-cameral rubber stamp which the House of Commons is rapidly becoming?

  2. ObiterJ says:

    Thank you for the links.

    Mr Gove has no need to worry about the ability to act should – (and we hope not) – that a similar case occurs. His powers are adequate but all he has to do is exercise some basic fairness.

    Ofsted came out of the judicial review in the clear but, in my opinion, they should have a think about how they would go about things in any similar future urgent review. Perhaps they have done this already. Their press release about the Court of Appeal decision is at:

  3. Mr BD says:

    There are many poeple who “like to think in a child protection scandal involving significant public pressure for urgent action, [the judiciary] would be relatively [willing] to act.”

    “It seems that the present [judiciary] is concerned to restrict [an urgently required reassessment of Relocation law]. Here we are in dangerous territory. Surely, the most important point is that [the judiciary] must act in accordance with law,” [namely the Children Act 1989, and serve the paramount interests of the child by giving due weight and consideration to contemporary scientific child welfare research, as well as to gender-neutral dynamics of modern family life which are unrecognisable to those of the 1970s].

    Parliamentarians are accountable for their actions, omissions and errors. And rightly so.

    The judiciary, on the other hand, are not.

    For those of us who believe that judges are capable of making mistakes, such unaccountability is scandalous.

    For those who believe that judges are simply incapable of erring, the situation is perfectly acceptable.

    Mr BD

    1. Lloyd Jenkins says:


      How about those of us who are aware that the judicial errors can be resolved through the democratic process (i.e. legislation) and are also aware that electing a judge is incompatible with judicial independence? Do we get a say, or is your view of the debate entirely between two equally ridiculous viewpoints?

      1. Mr BD says:

        Hello Mr Jenkins.

        Of course, everyone gets a say! That seems quite obvious, and I don’t really know why you ask this question.

        I’m glad that you seem to accept the point that judges are capable of making errors.

        The difficulty I have with your response is that there already exists “good” legislation regarding Relocation law. Parliament’s Children Act 1989 clearly instructs the judiciary to serve the paramount interests of the child.

        Lord McNally of the Ministry of Justice has advised me that the judiciary has the power to interpret that law in whatever way it wishes, to apply whatever principles and suppositions it wishes, to rely on whatever legal precedents it wishes (Poel) and to consider (or ignore) whatever scientific evidence it wishes.

        Power, therefore, would seem to rest with the judiciary. If they abuse that power, Parliament seems powerless to act.

        There appears to be no mechanism for the judiciary to rectify its own mistakes swiftly. Their hands seem tied by their own judgments: for example Sir Nicholas Wall cannot go against the suppositions in Payne v Payne 2001. He is bound by them. In no other profession would a President be so powerless to rectify the position of his organisation, in the face of such “compelling” and “powerful” evidence. (Wall’s adjectives).

        My view is that this situation is shameful. What is your view?

        Mr BD

Comments are closed.

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.




7/7 Bombings 9/11 A1P1 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 birds directive 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 buzzard common law communications competition confidentiality confiscation order conscientious objection consent conservation constitution contact order contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Criminal Legal Aid criminal records Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty declaration of incompatibility defamation DEFRA Democracy village deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention devolution Dignitas dignity Dignity in Dying diplomacy director of public prosecutions disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA doctors does it matter? domestic violence Dominic Grieve don't ask don't ask don't tell don't tell Doogan and Wood double conviction drones duty of care ECHR economic and social rights economic loss ECtHR Education election Employment Environment environmental information 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 Family Family life fatal accidents act Fertility FGM Finance fishing rights foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Association Freedom of Expression freedom of information Freedom of Information Act 2000 freedom of movement freedom of speech free speech game birds gangbo gang injunctions Garry Mann gary dobson Gary McFarlane gay discrimination Gay marriage gay rights gay soldiers Gaza Gaza conflict Gender General Dental Council General Election General Medical Council genetic discrimination genetic engineering genetic information genetics genetic testing Germany Google government Grenfell grooming Gun Control gwyneth paltrow gypsies habitats habitats protection hammerton v uk happy new year Hardeep Singh Haringey Council Harkins and Edwards Health healthcare health insurance Heathrow heist heightened scrutiny Henry VII Henry VIII hereditary disorder Hirst v UK HIV HJ Iran HM (Iraq) v The Secretary of state for the home department [2010] EWCA Civ 1322 Holder holkham beach holocaust Home Office Home Office v Tariq homeopathy hooding Hounslow v Powell House of Commons Housing housing benefits Howard League for Penal Reform how judges decide cases hra damages claim HRLA HS2 hs2 challenge hts Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority human genome human rights Human Rights Act Human Rights Act 1998 human rights advocacy Human rights and the UK constitution human rights commission human rights conventions human rights damages Human Rights Day human rights decisions Human Rights Information Project human rights news Human Rights Watch human right to education human trafficking hunting Huntington's Disease HXA hyper injunctions Igor Sutyagin illegality defence immigration Immigration/Extradition Immigration Act 2014 immigration appeals immigration detention immigration judge immigration rules immunity India Indonesia Infrastructure Planning Committee inherited disease Inhuman and degrading treatment injunction Inquest Inquests insurance insurmountable obstacles intelligence services act intercept evidence interception interim remedies international international criminal court international law international treaty obligations internet internet service providers internship inuit investigation investigative duty in vitro fertilisation Iran Iranian nuclear program Iraq Iraqi asylum seeker Iraq War Ireland irrationality islam Israel Italy iTunes IVF ivory ban jackson reforms Janowiec and Others v Russia ( Japan Jason Smith Jeet Singh Jeremy Corbyn jeremy hunt job Jogee John Hemming John Terry joint enterprise joint tenancy Jon Guant Joseph v Spiller journalism judaism judges Judges and Juries judging Judicial activism judicial brevity judicial deference judicial review Judicial Review reform judiciary Julian Assange jurisdiction jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Act Justice and Security Bill Justice and Security Green Paper Justice Human Rights Awards JUSTICE Human Rights Awards 2010 just satisfaction Katyn Massacre Kay v Lambeth Kay v UK Ken Clarke Kerry McCarthy Kettling Kings College koran burning Labour Lady Hale LASPO Law Pod UK Law Society of Scotland leave to enter leave to remain legal aid legal aid cuts Legal Aid Reforms legal blogs Legal Certainty legal naughty step Legal Ombudsman legal representation legitimate expectation let as a dwelling Leveson Inquiry Levi Bellfield lewisham hospital closure lgbtq liability Libel libel reform Liberal Democrat Conference Liberty libraries closure library closures Libya licence conditions licence to shoot life insurance life sentence limestone pavements lisbon treaty Lithuania Litigation litvinenko live exports local authorities locked in syndrome London Legal Walk London Probation Trust Lord Bingham Lord Blair Lord Goldsmith lord irvine Lord Judge speech Lord Kerr Lord Lester Lord Neuberger Lord Phillips Lord Sumption Lord Taylor luftur rahman MAGA Magna Carta mail on sunday Majority Verdict Malcolm Kennedy malice Margaret Thatcher Margin of Appreciation margin of discretion Maria Gallastegui marriage material support maternity pay Matthew Woods Maya the Cat Mba v London Borough Of Merton McKenzie friend Media and Censorship Medical medical liability medical negligence medical qualifications medical records medicine mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Capacity Act 2005 Mental Health mental health act mental health advocacy mental health awareness Mental illness merits review MGN v UK michael gove Midwives migrant crisis Milly Dowler Ministerial Code Ministry of Justice Ministry of Justice cuts misfeasance in public office modern slavery morality morocco mortuaries motherhood Motor Neurone disease Moulton Mousa MP expenses Mr Gul Mr Justice Eady MS (Palestinian Territories) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department murder murder reform Musician's Union Muslim NADA v. SWITZERLAND - 10593/08 - HEJUD [2012] ECHR 1691 naked rambler Naomi Campbell nationality National Pro Bono Week national security Natural England nature conservation naturism Nazi negligence Neuberger neuroscience Newcastle university news new Supreme Court President NHS NHS Risk Register Nick Clegg Nicklinson Niqaab Noise Regulations 2005 Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance nursing nursing home Obituary Occupy London offensive jokes Offensive Speech offensive t shirt oil spill olympics open justice oppress OPQ v BJM orchestra Osama Bin Laden paramountcy principle parental rights parenthood parliamentary expenses parliamentary expenses scandal Parliamentary sovereignty Parliament square parole board pastor Terry Jones patents Pathway Students Patrick Quinn murder Pensions persecution personal data Personal Injury personality rights perversity Peter and Hazelmary Bull PF and EF v UK Phil Woolas phone hacking phone taps physical and mental disabilities physician assisted death Pinnock Piracy Plagiarism planning planning human rights planning system plebgate POCA podcast points Poland Police police investigations police liability police misconduct police powers police surveillance Policy Exchange report political judges Politics Politics/Public Order poor reporting Pope portal possession proceedings power of attorney PoW letters to ministers pre-nup pre-nuptial Pre-trial detention predator control pregnancy press press briefing press freedom Prince Charles prince of wales princess caroline of monaco principle of subsidiarity prior restraint prison Prisoners prisoners rights prisoners voting prisoner vote prisoner votes prisoner voting Prisons prison vote privacy privacy injunction privacy law through the front door Private life private nuisance private use proceeds of crime Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecution Protection of Freedoms Act Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest protest camp protest rights Protocol 15 psychiatric hospitals Public/Private public access publication public authorities Public Bodies Bill public inquiries public interest public interest environmental litigation public interest immunity Public Order Public Sector Equality Duty putting the past behind quango quantum quarantine Queen's Speech queer in the 21st century R (on the application of) v The General Medical Council [2013] EWHC 2839 (Admin) R (on the application of EH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2569 (Admin) Rabone and another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2 race relations Rachel Corrie Radmacher Raed Salah Mahajna Raed Saleh Ramsgate raptors rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion resuscitation RightsInfo right to die right to family life right to life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials security services sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa south african constitution Spain special advocates spending cuts Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax Taxi technology Terrorism terrorism act tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vaccination vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


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: