header-logo header-logo

Judicial review: a process under pressure

03 December 2021 / Matthew Smith
Issue: 7959 / Categories: Opinion , Judicial review , Rule of law
printer mail-detail
66006
Matthew Smith gets under the skin of the government’s concerns about judicial overreach

Judicial review has found itself in the government’s crosshairs on several occasions in the last decade or so. Ministers asserted again and again during that period that immigration judicial review took up too much time and resource; that unmeritorious judicial review cases of all types clogged up the system and led to delay; and that too much judicial review was brought to prolong unsuccessful political campaigns, with the attendant risk that the judiciary would stray into matters not properly for them.

The most recent road to reform began with the launch—in July 2020—of the Independent Review of Administrative Law, referred to universally now as IRAL. Despite its name, the focus was on judicial review, rather than the wider field of administrative law; but even so, there was, initially at least, considerable concern among legal practitioners that it would generate far-reaching proposals and threaten the pivotal role played by judicial review in upholding the rule of law.

This

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll