Greetings, legal enthusiasts! We are delighted to bring you a fresh episode of our Crunching Concepts series. This time, we are jousting with a principle of paramount importance in the UK's constitutional system – judicial review. Fasten your seat belts as we plunge into this bedrock of administrative justice, bridging the gap between law and its observance.
Judicial review is a potent tool wielded by courts to ensure the legality, rationality, and procedural fairness of decisions, actions, or omissions made by public bodies. It invites not a critique of the decision's merits but a thorough examination of the decision-making process. This scrutiny aims to guarantee that public bodies wield their powers within the confines of the law, not overstepping their authority or acting ultra vires.
Now, you might wonder, why does judicial review hold such significance? Its relevance can be explicated in four key ways.
1. Firstly, it functions as a vigilant watchman monitoring the exercise of state power, ensuring a healthy equilibrium between governmental authority and individual rights.
2. Secondly, it demands accountability from public bodies, officials, and decision-makers, forcing them to hold fast to legal conduct and procedures.
3. Thirdly, it crystallizes legal certainty and predictability, thereby fostering adherence to legal norms and principles.
4. Finally, judicial review can trigger legal and policy reforms as it exposes deficiencies within public administration, inciting changes for the better.
• Anisminic Ltd v. Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147: This case gave rise to the 'Anisminic Principle', which boldly declares that any legal mistake by a public body renders its decision ultra vires, paving the way for judicial review.
• Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (GCHQ) [1984] UKHL 9, [1985] AC 374: Here, judicial review assumed even royal prerogatives to be under its inspection, a transformative move underpinning the rule of law and broadening the judiciary's scrutinising powers.
• R (on the application of UNISON) (Appellant) v Lord Chancellor (Respondent) [2017] UKSC 51: This case displayed the potency of judicial review as a defender of fundamental rights, with the Supreme Court ruling certain government-introduced employment tribunal fees to be unlawful, laying bare their impediment to justice and their unjustified burden on lower-income individuals.
CaseSnappy is ever-committed to breaking down complex legal principles into easily digestible modules, ensuring that demystifying the legal system remains a pleasant journey rather than a daunting task. We trust this venture into judicial review has illuminated this crucial legal framework for you.
Keep your eyes peeled for our next chapter down the path of legal enlightenment. CaseSnappy welcomes you to join us, free of charge, on our enlightening voyage through the legal realm!