header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
03 August 2020 / Amanda Robinson , David Wolchover
Categories: Features , Constitutional law , Profession
printer mail-detail

Judicial review: under review

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
Is the current government a threat to the independence of the judiciary? Amanda Robinson & David Wolchover review the evidence

On 14 February 2020, Amanda Pinto QC, Chair of the Bar Council, highlighted concerns about the Prime Minister’s proposals for a constitutional commission to examine the role of judicial review challenges and whether judges were trespassing on political territory. Five months on, the Prime Minister’s proposal is now reality with the government announcing last Friday that an independent panel, chaired by Lord Edward Faulks QC, will consider whether the right balance is being struck between the rights of citizens to challenge executive decisions and the need for effective and efficient government. It is our contention that the threat or potential threat to the judiciary is far greater, if the government’s words and actions are taken at face value.

Boris  Johnson: a potted history

The Prime Minister is no stranger to challenges over his apparent indifference to testimonial exactitude, to deploy a euphemism coined by the historical colossus he so

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: 40 years on, has PACE lost its edge?
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
NLJ this week: Stress-testing the City
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
NLJ this week: How sure is ‘sure’ enough?
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
NLJ this week: A deferred prosecution reprieve
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
NLJ this week: Mandelson, Epstein & the court of popular opinion
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll