header-logo header-logo

03 December 2021 / Matthew Smith
Issue: 7959 / Categories: Opinion , Judicial review , Rule of law
printer mail-detail

Judicial review: a process under pressure

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll