Lostlaura
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
Hi
Does anyone know any examples of judicial review?
0
reply
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
What subject are you asking for? Hundreds of judicial review cases happen every year. A recent one is Bancoult [2013], wherein the applicants from the Chagos Islands claimed that the Secretary of State had acted with improper purposes (and his decision was thus unlawful) by designating Chagos as a Marine Protected Area, which had the effect of preventing them from resettling (they had previously had to move because the island was used - I think - as a US military zone). The key piece of evidence in their favour was a Wikileaks document which suggested that the SS had primarily made his decision because he would rather prevent their resettlement. However, this wasn't permitted as being used as evidence due to the lack of certainty about its provenance and the fact that there was nobody involved who could corroborate it. Therefore, because the improper purpose alleged was particularly unusual, the High Court held that a higher standard was required to establish that the purpose had existed - the circumstances must be 'truly remarkable'. This was primarily because of the presumption against believing in outlandish and unusual claims with little supporting evidence.
0
reply
Lostlaura
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#3
It's for a British politics paper, i just need a few examples of reviews that have happend over the last few years!
0
reply
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
Okay, here's two more:

Carlile [2014] - 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 [2011] - 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).
1
reply
TheonlyMrsHolmes
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
Ugh no more gov and pol for me today plssssss, that stupid exam
1
reply
Lostlaura
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#6
Couldn't find any in my notes, thanks for the help!
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Which of these would you use to help with making uni decisions?

Webinars (31)
13.84%
Virtual campus tours/open days (50)
22.32%
Live streaming events (21)
9.38%
Online AMAs/guest lectures (21)
9.38%
A uni comparison tool (51)
22.77%
An in-person event when available (50)
22.32%

Watched Threads

View All