Judicial review has found itself in the government’s crosshairs on several occasions in the past decade, Matthew Smith, partner, DBD Pitmans, writes in this week’s NLJ. Focusing on the latest attempts to reform judicial review, he points out a troubling presumption in the proposed bill, which he thinks would be better removed
Smith also highlights how a proposal on the retrospective effect of a quashing order appears to give the judiciary rather than Parliament the power to change the position retrospectively.
He writes: ‘If, as seems likely, one of the government’s motivations for proposing reform of judicial review is to clip the judges’ wings, it is arguable that it has missed the target. Further, in doing so, ministers appear (perhaps inadvertently) to have undermined Parliament, thus risking further tensions in a constitutional framework which is already under considerable stress.’
RELATED ARTICLES
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
