Judicial Review
Judicial Review
Judicial Review is the power of courts to examine the actions, decisions, or laws made by the executive and legislative branches of government and determine whether they are lawful, constitutional, and within the scope of authority granted by law.
Key Features:
Purpose:
To ensure that public authorities act within the law.
To protect citizens from arbitrary or illegal exercise of power.
To uphold the rule of law and constitutional governance.
Scope:
Review of executive actions, administrative decisions, and sometimes legislation.
Determination whether decisions comply with statutes, constitutional provisions, or principles of natural justice.
Grounds for Judicial Review:
Illegality: Decision-maker exceeded jurisdiction or acted contrary to law.
Irrationality (Wednesbury Unreasonableness): Decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would make it.
Procedural Impropriety: Failure to follow fair procedure or natural justice.
Proportionality: Whether the decision is proportionate to the aim pursued (especially in human rights contexts).
Remedies:
Quashing orders (invalidating decisions).
Mandatory orders (compelling action).
Prohibitory orders (preventing unlawful action).
Declarations and injunctions.
Limits:
Courts do not substitute their own decision for that of the authority.
Courts respect separation of powers and avoid political questions.
Some decisions are excluded from review by statute.
Key Case Laws on Judicial Review
1. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
Facts: A local authority imposed a condition prohibiting children under 15 from attending cinema on Sundays.
Issue: Whether the condition was lawful or unreasonable.
Holding: The court held that a decision would be unlawful if it is "so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it."
Significance: Established the test for irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness) in judicial review.
2. Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 (the GCHQ case)
Facts: The government banned trade union membership for employees at GCHQ for national security reasons.
Issue: Whether the decision was subject to judicial review.
Holding: The House of Lords ruled that the decision was reviewable, but national security considerations could limit remedies.
Significance: Expanded judicial review to executive decisions previously thought immune, but recognized exceptions for national security.
3. Ridge v. Baldwin [1964] AC 40
Facts: A police chief was dismissed without a hearing.
Issue: Whether the dismissal violated the principles of natural justice.
Holding: The House of Lords held the dismissal was unlawful because the officer was denied a fair hearing.
Significance: Reinforced the importance of procedural fairness and natural justice in administrative decisions.
4. R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union [1995] 2 AC 513
Facts: The Home Secretary failed to implement a compensation scheme promised by law.
Issue: Whether the Secretary’s failure to act was reviewable.
Holding: The House of Lords held that the failure to implement a statutory scheme was unlawful.
Significance: Clarified that public authorities must not frustrate or refuse to exercise statutory powers.
5. Bank Mellat v. HM Treasury (No 2) [2013] UKSC 39
Facts: The Treasury imposed sanctions on Bank Mellat without proper reasoning.
Issue: Whether the Treasury’s decision was lawful.
Holding: The Supreme Court held the decision unlawful due to failure to provide reasons and breach of fair procedure.
Significance: Highlighted the requirement of transparency and reasoned decision-making under judicial review.
6. R (on the application of Daly) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] UKHL 26
Facts: The Home Secretary authorized cell searches that interfered with legal correspondence.
Issue: Whether the interference was proportionate.
Holding: The House of Lords applied proportionality and ruled the policy unlawful.
Significance: Introduced the proportionality test in judicial review, especially in rights-related cases.
Summary
Judicial review acts as a crucial check on public power, ensuring legality, fairness, and reasonableness.
The courts have developed key tests such as Wednesbury unreasonableness, natural justice, and proportionality.
Important cases have shaped judicial review, balancing government discretion with citizens’ rights.
Judicial review ensures that administrative actions comply with law and respect fundamental rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments