Limits of Judicial Review
Share
Judicial review is a fundamental mechanism within the legal system that allows individuals to challenge the lawfulness of decisions made by public bodies. Its purpose is to ensure that public authorities exercise their powers lawfully, fairly, and within the scope of their authority. However, judicial review is not an unlimited remedy, as it must operate within well-defined boundaries, both procedural and substantive.
1. Justiciability
One of the primary limits of judicial review is the concept of justiciability, which is the idea that only certain types of disputes are appropriate for judicial scrutiny. Courts will not intervene in decisions that are fundamentally political in nature or involve high-level policy decisions beyond legal standards. This principle respects the separation of powers by ensuring that courts do not encroach on the domains of Parliament and the executive.
In R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] (commonly known as the Miller case), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle of justiciability. The Court held that triggering Article 50 to leave the European Union required parliamentary approval, but it also acknowledged that certain political decisions, such as the negotiation of treaties, are not subject to judicial review.
Similarly, in R (Corner House Research) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2008], the House of Lords ruled that the decision of the Serious Fraud Office to halt an investigation into alleged bribery involving Saudi arms deals was a political matter and beyond the court’s scrutiny due to its potential impact on national security.
2. Standing (Locus Standi)
Only individuals or groups with a sufficient interest in the outcome of the case can bring a claim for judicial review. This principle is intended to prevent frivolous or vexatious claims and ensure that only those directly affected by the public body's actions can challenge them.
In R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982], the House of Lords set a threshold for standing, requiring that claimants demonstrate a real interest in the subject matter of the dispute. The decision confirmed that judicial review is not available to those with only a general or theoretical interest in the legality of government actions.
This principle was codified in Section 31(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, which requires that an applicant for judicial review demonstrate a sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates.
3. Time Limits
Judicial review claims must be filed promptly, typically within three months of the decision being challenged. This limit prevents public authorities from facing legal uncertainty for extended periods of time. The relevant provision is found in Civil Procedure Rules 54.5, which states that a claim for judicial review must be made promptly and, in any event, not later than three months after the grounds for the claim arose.
The importance of promptness was emphasised in Caswell v Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal for England and Wales [1990], where the court held that judicial review could be refused if there was undue delay in bringing the claim. Delays can unfairly prejudice public authorities, and the courts may refuse to grant a remedy if they find that the claimant waited too long to bring the challenge.
4. Alternative Remedies
Judicial review is intended as a remedy of last resort. If there is a statutory appeal process or another legal mechanism available, courts will often refuse to entertain a judicial review claim. The claimant is expected to exhaust all alternative remedies before seeking judicial review.
In R (Cowl) v Plymouth City Council [2001] EWCA Civ 1935, Lord Woolf highlighted the need for claimants to seek resolution through alternative dispute resolution mechanisms or statutory appeals before resorting to judicial review. The case stressed the importance of avoiding unnecessary litigation in public law.
5. Scope of Judicial Scrutiny
Judicial review is primarily concerned with ensuring that public bodies act lawfully, not whether their decisions are correct or fair in a substantive sense. Courts review the legality, procedural fairness, and rationality of decisions, not the merits.
In Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948], the Court of Appeal established the Wednesbury unreasonableness standard, which limits judicial review to cases where the decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it. This decision has been pivotal in limiting the scope of judicial review to issues of legality rather than the merits of the decision itself.
6. Discretionary Remedies
Even if a claimant succeeds in proving that a decision was unlawful, the court retains discretion over whether to grant a remedy. Remedies such as quashing orders, prohibiting orders, or mandatory orders are not guaranteed and may be denied if, for example, the claimant has not suffered significant harm, or the remedy would cause disproportionate disruption to public administration.
This discretion was affirmed in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fayed [1998] 1 WLR 763, where the courts acknowledged that they have the power to refuse a remedy, even where the decision-maker had acted unlawfully.
7. Political Questions
Judicial review respects parliamentary sovereignty and does not extend to reviewing the content of primary legislation passed by Parliament. Courts are bound by statutes and will not strike down or invalidate primary legislation. However, under the Human Rights Act 1998, courts may issue a declaration of incompatibility if legislation is found to be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
In R (Jackson) v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56, the House of Lords considered the relationship between parliamentary sovereignty and judicial review, emphasising that while Parliament has the ultimate authority in making laws, the courts are responsible for ensuring that these laws comply with the rule of law and principles of justice.
8. Non-justiciability
Certain areas, such as foreign affairs and national security, are typically considered non-justiciable, meaning that courts are reluctant to intervene. This reflects the view that these matters are within the discretion of the executive and involve political judgment rather than legal principles.
In R (Abbasi) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2002], the Court of Appeal held that while the courts could review certain aspects of government policy on foreign affairs, such as compliance with human rights obligations, they would not interfere with decisions that involve complex political considerations, such as the diplomatic actions taken by the Foreign Office.
In conclusion, judicial review plays a vital role in ensuring that public bodies act within the law, but it is not without limits. Through principles such as justiciability, standing, promptness, alternative remedies, and the scope of judicial scrutiny, the courts strike a balance between holding public authorities accountable and maintaining respect for the separation of powers. Judicial review is designed to be a targeted remedy, focused on correcting unlawful actions rather than serving as a tool for litigating policy decisions. As such, it remains a key feature of the rule of law while operating within well-defined boundaries.
1. Justiciability
One of the primary limits of judicial review is the concept of justiciability, which is the idea that only certain types of disputes are appropriate for judicial scrutiny. Courts will not intervene in decisions that are fundamentally political in nature or involve high-level policy decisions beyond legal standards. This principle respects the separation of powers by ensuring that courts do not encroach on the domains of Parliament and the executive.
In R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] (commonly known as the Miller case), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle of justiciability. The Court held that triggering Article 50 to leave the European Union required parliamentary approval, but it also acknowledged that certain political decisions, such as the negotiation of treaties, are not subject to judicial review.
Similarly, in R (Corner House Research) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2008], the House of Lords ruled that the decision of the Serious Fraud Office to halt an investigation into alleged bribery involving Saudi arms deals was a political matter and beyond the court’s scrutiny due to its potential impact on national security.
2. Standing (Locus Standi)
Only individuals or groups with a sufficient interest in the outcome of the case can bring a claim for judicial review. This principle is intended to prevent frivolous or vexatious claims and ensure that only those directly affected by the public body's actions can challenge them.
In R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982], the House of Lords set a threshold for standing, requiring that claimants demonstrate a real interest in the subject matter of the dispute. The decision confirmed that judicial review is not available to those with only a general or theoretical interest in the legality of government actions.
This principle was codified in Section 31(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, which requires that an applicant for judicial review demonstrate a sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates.
3. Time Limits
Judicial review claims must be filed promptly, typically within three months of the decision being challenged. This limit prevents public authorities from facing legal uncertainty for extended periods of time. The relevant provision is found in Civil Procedure Rules 54.5, which states that a claim for judicial review must be made promptly and, in any event, not later than three months after the grounds for the claim arose.
The importance of promptness was emphasised in Caswell v Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal for England and Wales [1990], where the court held that judicial review could be refused if there was undue delay in bringing the claim. Delays can unfairly prejudice public authorities, and the courts may refuse to grant a remedy if they find that the claimant waited too long to bring the challenge.
4. Alternative Remedies
Judicial review is intended as a remedy of last resort. If there is a statutory appeal process or another legal mechanism available, courts will often refuse to entertain a judicial review claim. The claimant is expected to exhaust all alternative remedies before seeking judicial review.
In R (Cowl) v Plymouth City Council [2001] EWCA Civ 1935, Lord Woolf highlighted the need for claimants to seek resolution through alternative dispute resolution mechanisms or statutory appeals before resorting to judicial review. The case stressed the importance of avoiding unnecessary litigation in public law.
5. Scope of Judicial Scrutiny
Judicial review is primarily concerned with ensuring that public bodies act lawfully, not whether their decisions are correct or fair in a substantive sense. Courts review the legality, procedural fairness, and rationality of decisions, not the merits.
In Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948], the Court of Appeal established the Wednesbury unreasonableness standard, which limits judicial review to cases where the decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it. This decision has been pivotal in limiting the scope of judicial review to issues of legality rather than the merits of the decision itself.
6. Discretionary Remedies
Even if a claimant succeeds in proving that a decision was unlawful, the court retains discretion over whether to grant a remedy. Remedies such as quashing orders, prohibiting orders, or mandatory orders are not guaranteed and may be denied if, for example, the claimant has not suffered significant harm, or the remedy would cause disproportionate disruption to public administration.
This discretion was affirmed in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fayed [1998] 1 WLR 763, where the courts acknowledged that they have the power to refuse a remedy, even where the decision-maker had acted unlawfully.
7. Political Questions
Judicial review respects parliamentary sovereignty and does not extend to reviewing the content of primary legislation passed by Parliament. Courts are bound by statutes and will not strike down or invalidate primary legislation. However, under the Human Rights Act 1998, courts may issue a declaration of incompatibility if legislation is found to be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
In R (Jackson) v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56, the House of Lords considered the relationship between parliamentary sovereignty and judicial review, emphasising that while Parliament has the ultimate authority in making laws, the courts are responsible for ensuring that these laws comply with the rule of law and principles of justice.
8. Non-justiciability
Certain areas, such as foreign affairs and national security, are typically considered non-justiciable, meaning that courts are reluctant to intervene. This reflects the view that these matters are within the discretion of the executive and involve political judgment rather than legal principles.
In R (Abbasi) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2002], the Court of Appeal held that while the courts could review certain aspects of government policy on foreign affairs, such as compliance with human rights obligations, they would not interfere with decisions that involve complex political considerations, such as the diplomatic actions taken by the Foreign Office.
In conclusion, judicial review plays a vital role in ensuring that public bodies act within the law, but it is not without limits. Through principles such as justiciability, standing, promptness, alternative remedies, and the scope of judicial scrutiny, the courts strike a balance between holding public authorities accountable and maintaining respect for the separation of powers. Judicial review is designed to be a targeted remedy, focused on correcting unlawful actions rather than serving as a tool for litigating policy decisions. As such, it remains a key feature of the rule of law while operating within well-defined boundaries.
