Does anyone know any examples of judicial review?
Carlile  - applicant (MPs) invite Iranian dissident to the UK; she's been exiled from the UK. They apply to SS for this decision to be changed, he refuses. They apply to court for review of decision for incompatibility with Art 10 ECHR right to freedom of expression. Eventually appealed to Supreme Court, who accept that the right is engaged, and relevant, but the interference in this case was lawful because it was proportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting national security - the right wasn't engaged to a particularly high level, as it wasn't preventing the applicants from hearing the dissident speak at all, it was just a single limitation on the location of any conversation, and given she was domiciled in Europe, it was perfectly possible to exercise their Art 10 right without needing to be in the UK. Furthermore, it wasn't for the courts to interfere with the executive on matters like this, as the courts were neither constitutionally nor institutionally competent on the matter relative to the executive, the matter being primarily concerned with questions of public policy and defense.
R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal  - the applicant had been refused leave to appeal against a decision of the First Tier Tribunal (tribunals are an alternative method of resolving disputes to courts) by the Upper Tribunal. The issue before the Supreme Court was first, whether the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 had ousted their jurisdiction to review decisions of the Upper Tribunal entirely, and if not, on what conditions the courts were able to review for error of law. First, the court held that the jurisdiction of the court had not been ousted entirely - to do so would require clear statutory wording to that effect, and implication by the 'general effect' of the statute was insufficient. Secondly, however, the court held that jurisdiction to review decisions of the Upper Tribunal was limited based on a construction of the intended effect of the statute. The TCEA had been created based on the Leggatt Report, and although Parliament didn't go as far as the report did, and fully oust judicial review, they followed the general scheme and thrust of the report quite substantially. Therefore, instead of the court's usual jurisdiction (to review for any error of law), the review should be permissible only according to the standard of appeals to the Court of Appeal (when either the appeal raised an important point of practice or principle, or there were other compelling reasons for hearing the appeal).