Judicial review: what’s admissible?

26 November 2021 / Nicholas Dobson

Issue: 7958 / Categories: Features , Judicial review

Nicholas Dobson examines expert opinion evidence in judicial review proceedings

In judicial review proceedings, it is seldom necessary or appropriate to consider any evidence beyond the material before the decision-maker at the time of the decision and evidence of the process by which the decision was taken.

The Oxford English Dictionary tells us that an expert is a: ‘person regarded or consulted as an authority on account of special skill, training, or knowledge; a specialist’. However, former prime minister, Lord Salisbury (1830–1903) had a more jaundiced view: ‘You never should trust experts’, he wrote. For if: ‘you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome: if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent: if you believe the soldiers, nothing is safe.’ There does, nevertheless, remain widespread public trust in expert opinion; much more so than in politicians. Relying on this, government ministers have often claimed to be ‘following the science’ on COVID.

But what of expert witnesses in court proceedings? Rule 35.2 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) states that a ‘reference to

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

Judicial review: what’s admissible?

Nicholas Dobson examines expert opinion evidence in judicial review proceedings

In judicial review proceedings, it is seldom necessary or appropriate to consider any evidence beyond the material before the decision-maker at the time of the decision and evidence of the process by which the decision was taken.

But what of expert witnesses in court proceedings? Rule 35.2 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) states that a ‘reference to

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

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All

DWF—19 appointments

Belfast team bolstered by three senior hires and 16 further appointments

Cadwalader—Andro Atlaga

Firm strengthens leveraged finance team with London partner hire

Knights—Ella Dodgson & Rebecca Laffan

Double hire marks launch of family team in Leeds

NEWS

Read All

NLJ this week: Trans pool player loses discrimination fight

Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve reports on Haynes v Thomson, the first judicial application of the Supreme Court’s For Women Scotland ruling in a discrimination claim, in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: Fraud claims climb as courts brace for AI threats

Charlie Mercer and Astrid Gillam of Stewarts crunch the numbers on civil fraud claims in the English courts, in this week's NLJ. New data shows civil fraud claims rising steadily since 2014, with the King’s Bench Division overtaking the Commercial Court as the forum of choice for lower-value disputes

NLJ this week: Traders’ convictions quashed in Libor shock

The Supreme Court issued a landmark judgment in July that overturned the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, once poster boys of the Libor and Euribor scandal. In NLJ this week, Neil Swift of Peters & Peters considers what the ruling means for financial law enforcement

NLJ this week: Small firms call for tech clarity as AI looms

Small law firms want to embrace technology but feel lost in a maze of jargon, costs and compliance fears, writes Aisling O’Connell of the Solicitors Regulation Authority in this week's NLJ

NLJ this week: AI boom collides with courtroom reality

Artificial intelligence may be revolutionising the law, but its misuse could wreck cases and careers, warns Clare Arthurs of Penningtons Manches Cooper in this week's NLJ

Error message

Judicial review: what’s admissible?

MOVERS & SHAKERS

DWF—19 appointments

Cadwalader—Andro Atlaga

Knights—Ella Dodgson & Rebecca Laffan