Judicial review is a very important process in the UK, where judges examine decisions made by public bodies and consider whether they have followed and correctly applied the law. This blog post will consider what judicial review is, what decisions can be reviewed, who can start proceedings and what the grounds are for judicial review.
We will start by considering the primary question of what judicial review is. As stated above, it is a review of the decisions made by public bodies. A key point to remember is that judicial review is not supposed to be an appeal of the decision made. Judicial review looks solely at the procedures and principles that have been applied in court and decides whether this has been done correctly.
If a claim for judicial review is successful, the decision of the courts will not be reversed. Instead, the decision will be quashed or nullified, meaning that it is no longer valid, and the case will have to be started again. However, the court may still come to the same decision as it did at the first hearing; the important thing is that the correct procedures have been followed and it complies with the law. Quite often, this will end up altering the outcome of the case.
Who is Subject to Judicial Review?
Judicial review is used to challenge the decisions of public bodies, as well as their acts and failures to act. These bodies will be ones that perform public functions, such as government ministers and local authorities. This is why judicial review is so important – it helps to hold public bodies responsible for their actions.
Who Can Bring a Claim?
Broadly speaking, anyone can bring a claim using judicial review. This can be an individual, group of individuals or an organisation. However, they must show that they have the standing to bring it, meaning that they must be affected by the decision. For example, a neighbourhood would have the standing to bring a claim against a decision that affected where they lived. On the other hand, organisations may be able to bring a claim if it is a topic that they are linked to and it is in the public interest.
What are the Grounds for Judicial Review?
Illegality
There are four main grounds for judicial review: illegality, proportionality, irrationality and procedural unfairness. We will now look at all of these in turn, starting with illegality, which is also known as public bodies acting beyond their powers. This longer name probably gives you a clue what is involved in a claim under this heading! You may have heard of it before as ultra vires, or “beyond the powers”, meaning that a public body or piece of secondary legislation should have acted within the legal authority granted to it, but stepped outside the bounds of this.
Limits are placed on the authority of public bodies and they must act within these for their decisions to be upheld by the courts. If a judicial review case finds that a public body acted beyond their powers in their decisions, actions, or failures to act, these will be illegal. Any decision made will be quashed and must be taken again, acting legally this time.
There are other ways in which public bodies can act illegally. Certain restrictions are placed on how they can make their decisions, meaning that they are required to do certain things. For example, they must only use relevant information when they are coming to their decision and disregard all irrelevant information. They must also address the right question and ensure that they have done everything reasonable to gather relevant information. Finally, they must not limit their discretion by applying rigid policies as if they were law.
Proportionality
Public bodies are also required to act proportionally, especially in cases where there is human rights legislation involved. Proportionality means that the public body must look at both the aims of the state and the rights of the individual, trying to strike a balance between the two that is both fair and just. The means used to reach the aims must correspond to the importance of the aim and must be no more intrusive on the rights of the individual than necessary.
Irrationality
A decision that is irrational can also be quashed, which is sometimes called Wednesbury unreasonableness. For a decision to be ruled irrational, there is a strict test used. The decision, action, or inaction must be so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would have made the same choice. This is extremely difficult to prove, so most judicial review cases aren’t argued solely on the basis of irrationality, instead being based on multiple grounds for review.
Procedural Unfairness
Decisions must be impartial, so they cannot be made by someone with a financial interest in the matter or a close relationship to one of the parties. Also, if there are procedures in place or precedents that mean certain parties should be consulted, this must happen to avoid unfairness.
Wrapping Up
I hope that this helps you understand the background to judicial review. In my next blog post, we will be looking at the different stages in the judicial review procedure, so come back in two weeks for that!
Want help proofreading your work? Contact Carmine Proofreading for a friendly, professional service from a qualified proofreader.
Email: CarmineProofreading@gmail.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/CarmineProofed
Carmine Proofreading 
1 thought on “What is Judicial Review? – Who and Why”