Judicial Review - Constitutional Law

JUDICIAL REVIEW NOTES

Definition & Importance

At its core, judicial review refers to the process by which the courts review the actions, decisions, and policies of public authorities to ensure that they are consistent with the law. It allows individuals to challenge the legality of decisions made by government bodies, such as administrative agencies, local authorities, and elected officials. Through judicial review, the courts have the authority to declare governmental actions as unlawful and provide remedies to individuals who have been adversely affected by such actions.

Importance of Judicial Review:

The importance of judicial review in the UK legal system cannot be overstated. It plays a crucial role in upholding the principles of the rule of law, protecting individual rights, and maintaining the separation of powers. By holding public authorities accountable for their actions, judicial review ensures that governmental decisions are made in accordance with the law and are not arbitrary, irrational, or unfair. It also serves as a mechanism for safeguarding the fundamental rights and liberties of citizens, ensuring that their rights are not infringed upon by the state. Furthermore, judicial review promotes transparency and accountability in governance, fostering public trust in the legal system and the rule of law.

Case Law: R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017)

A landmark case that exemplifies the importance of judicial review in the UK is R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the government could not trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union without parliamentary approval. The court held that the government's decision to invoke Article 50 solely based on the royal prerogative was unlawful, as it would fundamentally alter domestic law and rights. This case underscored the significance of judicial review in ensuring that governmental actions are subject to legal scrutiny and parliamentary oversight.

Grounds for Judicial Review:

There are several grounds on which judicial review can be sought in the UK. These include illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, and proportionality. Illegality refers to situations where public authorities exceed their legal powers or act ultra vires. Irrationality pertains to decisions that are so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would have made them. Procedural impropriety involves breaches of procedural rules or principles of natural justice. Proportionality evaluates whether the impact of a decision is proportionate to its objective. These grounds provide a legal basis for challenging the lawfulness of governmental actions through judicial review.

Applications

Grounds for Judicial Review:

There are several grounds upon which a judicial review application can be made, including the following:

1. Illegality:

One of the main grounds for judicial review is that the decision or action being challenged is illegal, meaning it goes beyond the scope of the public body's legal powers. This was demonstrated in the case of R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union, where the government was found to have exceeded its statutory powers in reducing firefighters' pay.

2. Irrationality:

Another ground for judicial review is irrationality, also known as Wednesbury unreasonableness. This occurs when a decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable public body could have made it. An example of this is the case of Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service, where the government's ban on trade unions in GCHQ was deemed irrational.

3. Procedural Impropriety:

Procedural impropriety refers to instances where the correct procedures have not been followed in making a decision or taking an action. The case of R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte Preston demonstrates this, where the court ruled that the revenue had failed to give the taxpayer a fair hearing before making a decision.

4. Legitimate Expectations:

Legitimate expectations can also be a ground for judicial review, where a public body has acted in a way that frustrates the reasonable expectations of an individual or organization. This was seen in the case of R v Secretary of State for Education, ex parte Begbie, where the government's decision to close a school without consultation breached the legitimate expectations of the school community.

5. Proportionality:

Proportionality is another ground for judicial review, which involves assessing whether the decision or action in question is proportionate to the aim it seeks to achieve. In the case of R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, the court found that the government's policy of allowing the detention of asylum seekers without judicial review was disproportionate.

Examples of Judicial Review Applications:

There have been numerous cases in the UK where judicial review applications have been made, some of which have had significant implications. Let's explore a few examples:

1. R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union:

In this landmark case, the Supreme Court ruled that the government could not trigger Article 50 to begin the process of leaving the EU without parliamentary approval. The court held that the government's decision was subject to judicial review and that parliamentary sovereignty must be respected.

2. R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor:

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that...