JUDICIAL REVIEW
This essay entails the discussion about the judicial review and its objective and part in the
larger perspective of accountability. It also explains how judicial review is thoroughly
accompanying to the rule of law and which associations are amenable to judicial review. We
will also describe the numerous procedural mechanisms in judicial review and also discuss
the grounds of judicial review at common law. It outlines the influence the Human Rights Act
on judicial review and also illuminate the Wednesbury Unreasonableness/Proportionality
dispute. Lastly, it describes the discretionary kind of remedies in judicial review and the
Recent developments in the context of judicial review.
Judicial review lies under the administrative law and mainly describes as the mechanism
for accountability of executive by upholding rule of law which make sure the legitimacy of
the verdicts and conducts of public bodies. De Smith, Woolf and Jowell states that “judicial
review is the usage of different mechanisms to make public bodies accountable under
administrative law” [Woolf and Jowell’s principles of Judicial review. (London: Sweet &
Maxwell, 2019) 8th edition].
The mechanisms include extrajudicial means which are systems that function outside of
formal court proceedings such as ombudsmen and inquiries. Ombudsmen are independent
bodies selected to examine objections against governmental or public institutions by allowing
individuals to address complaints or concerns about administrative actions while inquiries are
formal analyses that are conducted to inspect specific issues by collecting proofs, recognizing
accountabilities, and making proposals for improvements. Extrajudicial means also includes
legal control which gives oversight and accountability such as Tribunals and judicial review.
Tribunals are often used to resolve cases associated with administrative law, occupation
disputes, or particular governing matters while judicial review is the supremacy of courts to
review the fairness of government actions, laws, or verdicts such as whether these actions or
laws obey the constitutional principles, statutory obligations, or recognized legal standards.
Wade and Forsyth describes the administrative law as the group of ordinary beliefs which
control the use of powers and responsibilities by public authorities [Wade, H.W.R. and C.E.
Forsyth Administrative law. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014) 11 th edition].
Remedies in the judicial review are considered discretionary and might not be given if claim
is successful for judicial review.
,Judicial review is defined as the “procedure through which entities, corporations and
disturbed parties can encounter the legitimacy of judgments and activities or inactions of the
executive such as local authorities, government ministers, public bodies and the private
bodies doing public operations” (Explanatory Notes, Criminal Justice and Courts Act
2015). It is also defined as the “crucial check and balance on the state powers which ensures
the fairness in the decisions, actions or exclusions of public bodies” (Ministry of Justice,
Judicial Review: Proposals for further reform, 2013, Cm 8703, para.1).
Judicial review is actually relating with the constitutional doctrine of rule of law. The court
held that governmental authorities must have legal power such as a warrant to interrupt upon
the property or privacy of individuals for the reason of protecting individual rights against
indiscriminate government action [Entick v Carrington (1765)]. It illustrates that public
bodies must act within their permissible powers and follow standards of justice and fairness.
As, Endicott states that “the main principle of administrative law is to implement the rule of
law on public authorities” [Endicott, T. Administrative law. (New York: Oxford
University Press) 2nd edition]. Sometimes, judicial review can be used to bring
administratively encouraged challenges.
There is clear dissimilarity among judicial review and appeal as Justice Laws states that
“judicial review is the process where primary concern of courts is not whether the decision
being reviewed is objectively right or wrong or on distinctions, nor is it whether the judge
personally agrees with the decision. Instead, the court's emphasis is on whether the decision-
making course followed legal procedures” [R v Somerset County Council, ex parte
Fewings (1995)]. Courts should not interfere with executive discretion only because they
oppose with a verdict but they should only interfere if particular faults can be established
such as procedural unfairness which means that part of the court in judicial review is
administrative, not appellate. Lord Bingham describes that “courts are not allowed to decide
the merits of a case but only allowed to make sure that discretionary powers are exercised
legally and within the boundaries set by legislation and the constitution” [R (Corner House
Research) v Director of Serious Fraud Office (2008)]. Lord Ackner states that “if courts
do the decision making in judicial review, then it is considered as abuse of powers by
judiciary which is further results in breach of separation of powers” [Brind v Secretary of
State for the Home Department (1991)].
, There are many aspects which can differentiate judicial review from appeal. The
objective of judicial review is the courts are allowed to review the legitimacy of a verdicts or
actions made by a public body but not the merits of the decision itself, while appeal is a
process where a higher court reviews the verdicts of a lower court and the purpose is to
challenge and significantly overturn the decision relies on claims of legal error,
misinterpretation of the law, or procedural issues that affected the fairness of the trial. Judial
review is associated with the legality, procedural fairness, and reasonableness of the decisions
made by public bodies and does not re-evaluate the factual evidence to make a new decision
but evaluates whether the process was carried out correctly, while Appeals re-examine the
application of law and may also re-evaluate factual evidence relying on the grounds and type
of appeal which result in the original decision being upheld, reversed, or amended.
In England and Wales, applications for judicial review are generally heard in the High
Court and certain types of cases may be heard in the Upper Tribunal or the Administrative
Court, while appeals are heard in higher courts than where the original decision was made
such as appeals from decisions in the Magistrates' Court go to the Crown Court, appeals from
the High Court or Crown Court may go to the Court of Appeal, and further may reach the
Supreme Court, the highest court in the UK. Also, grounds for judicial review consisting of
illegality, irrationality, procedural unfairness, and legitimate expectation, as appeal normally
involves legitimate error, misinterpretation of provision, substantial procedural mistake, or a
manifestly wrong evaluation of proof.
There are strict time limits for taking a judicial review case, initially within three months
from the verdict date but this can vary relying on the case's context, as time limits for appeals
vary relying on the kind of case and the court from which the appeal is being created, but
they are commonly lesser than for judicial review, frequently calculated in weeks instead of
months. Parties have a right to have their case reviewed by a higher court in appeal while
judicial review typically requires permission from the court to proceed that is termed as
"leave" and must be required before a judicial review application can be made. Lastly, if
judicial review is successful then the outcome may include quashing the original decision,
mandating a reconsideration by the public body, or declaring the rights of the parties and does
not include awarding damages. On the other hand, successful appeal might result in the
original decision being overturned or altered, with possible remedies including a new trial,
changes to the sentence, or specific orders to correct legal errors.
This essay entails the discussion about the judicial review and its objective and part in the
larger perspective of accountability. It also explains how judicial review is thoroughly
accompanying to the rule of law and which associations are amenable to judicial review. We
will also describe the numerous procedural mechanisms in judicial review and also discuss
the grounds of judicial review at common law. It outlines the influence the Human Rights Act
on judicial review and also illuminate the Wednesbury Unreasonableness/Proportionality
dispute. Lastly, it describes the discretionary kind of remedies in judicial review and the
Recent developments in the context of judicial review.
Judicial review lies under the administrative law and mainly describes as the mechanism
for accountability of executive by upholding rule of law which make sure the legitimacy of
the verdicts and conducts of public bodies. De Smith, Woolf and Jowell states that “judicial
review is the usage of different mechanisms to make public bodies accountable under
administrative law” [Woolf and Jowell’s principles of Judicial review. (London: Sweet &
Maxwell, 2019) 8th edition].
The mechanisms include extrajudicial means which are systems that function outside of
formal court proceedings such as ombudsmen and inquiries. Ombudsmen are independent
bodies selected to examine objections against governmental or public institutions by allowing
individuals to address complaints or concerns about administrative actions while inquiries are
formal analyses that are conducted to inspect specific issues by collecting proofs, recognizing
accountabilities, and making proposals for improvements. Extrajudicial means also includes
legal control which gives oversight and accountability such as Tribunals and judicial review.
Tribunals are often used to resolve cases associated with administrative law, occupation
disputes, or particular governing matters while judicial review is the supremacy of courts to
review the fairness of government actions, laws, or verdicts such as whether these actions or
laws obey the constitutional principles, statutory obligations, or recognized legal standards.
Wade and Forsyth describes the administrative law as the group of ordinary beliefs which
control the use of powers and responsibilities by public authorities [Wade, H.W.R. and C.E.
Forsyth Administrative law. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014) 11 th edition].
Remedies in the judicial review are considered discretionary and might not be given if claim
is successful for judicial review.
,Judicial review is defined as the “procedure through which entities, corporations and
disturbed parties can encounter the legitimacy of judgments and activities or inactions of the
executive such as local authorities, government ministers, public bodies and the private
bodies doing public operations” (Explanatory Notes, Criminal Justice and Courts Act
2015). It is also defined as the “crucial check and balance on the state powers which ensures
the fairness in the decisions, actions or exclusions of public bodies” (Ministry of Justice,
Judicial Review: Proposals for further reform, 2013, Cm 8703, para.1).
Judicial review is actually relating with the constitutional doctrine of rule of law. The court
held that governmental authorities must have legal power such as a warrant to interrupt upon
the property or privacy of individuals for the reason of protecting individual rights against
indiscriminate government action [Entick v Carrington (1765)]. It illustrates that public
bodies must act within their permissible powers and follow standards of justice and fairness.
As, Endicott states that “the main principle of administrative law is to implement the rule of
law on public authorities” [Endicott, T. Administrative law. (New York: Oxford
University Press) 2nd edition]. Sometimes, judicial review can be used to bring
administratively encouraged challenges.
There is clear dissimilarity among judicial review and appeal as Justice Laws states that
“judicial review is the process where primary concern of courts is not whether the decision
being reviewed is objectively right or wrong or on distinctions, nor is it whether the judge
personally agrees with the decision. Instead, the court's emphasis is on whether the decision-
making course followed legal procedures” [R v Somerset County Council, ex parte
Fewings (1995)]. Courts should not interfere with executive discretion only because they
oppose with a verdict but they should only interfere if particular faults can be established
such as procedural unfairness which means that part of the court in judicial review is
administrative, not appellate. Lord Bingham describes that “courts are not allowed to decide
the merits of a case but only allowed to make sure that discretionary powers are exercised
legally and within the boundaries set by legislation and the constitution” [R (Corner House
Research) v Director of Serious Fraud Office (2008)]. Lord Ackner states that “if courts
do the decision making in judicial review, then it is considered as abuse of powers by
judiciary which is further results in breach of separation of powers” [Brind v Secretary of
State for the Home Department (1991)].
, There are many aspects which can differentiate judicial review from appeal. The
objective of judicial review is the courts are allowed to review the legitimacy of a verdicts or
actions made by a public body but not the merits of the decision itself, while appeal is a
process where a higher court reviews the verdicts of a lower court and the purpose is to
challenge and significantly overturn the decision relies on claims of legal error,
misinterpretation of the law, or procedural issues that affected the fairness of the trial. Judial
review is associated with the legality, procedural fairness, and reasonableness of the decisions
made by public bodies and does not re-evaluate the factual evidence to make a new decision
but evaluates whether the process was carried out correctly, while Appeals re-examine the
application of law and may also re-evaluate factual evidence relying on the grounds and type
of appeal which result in the original decision being upheld, reversed, or amended.
In England and Wales, applications for judicial review are generally heard in the High
Court and certain types of cases may be heard in the Upper Tribunal or the Administrative
Court, while appeals are heard in higher courts than where the original decision was made
such as appeals from decisions in the Magistrates' Court go to the Crown Court, appeals from
the High Court or Crown Court may go to the Court of Appeal, and further may reach the
Supreme Court, the highest court in the UK. Also, grounds for judicial review consisting of
illegality, irrationality, procedural unfairness, and legitimate expectation, as appeal normally
involves legitimate error, misinterpretation of provision, substantial procedural mistake, or a
manifestly wrong evaluation of proof.
There are strict time limits for taking a judicial review case, initially within three months
from the verdict date but this can vary relying on the case's context, as time limits for appeals
vary relying on the kind of case and the court from which the appeal is being created, but
they are commonly lesser than for judicial review, frequently calculated in weeks instead of
months. Parties have a right to have their case reviewed by a higher court in appeal while
judicial review typically requires permission from the court to proceed that is termed as
"leave" and must be required before a judicial review application can be made. Lastly, if
judicial review is successful then the outcome may include quashing the original decision,
mandating a reconsideration by the public body, or declaring the rights of the parties and does
not include awarding damages. On the other hand, successful appeal might result in the
original decision being overturned or altered, with possible remedies including a new trial,
changes to the sentence, or specific orders to correct legal errors.
