Does judicial review strike the right balance between enabling citizens to challenge the lawfulness of government action and allowing public bodies to carry on the business of effective government?
A summary of the key points in our response to the Government’s Independent Review of Administrative Law and next steps.
This article is taken from November's public matters newsletter. Click here to view more articles from this issue.
Introduction
Our article in September’s edition of public matters explained the background to the Government’s Independent Review of Administrative Law (‘IRAL’) and provided context for the specific areas of inquiry that the IRAL Panel had been asked to consider.
We have drawn upon our broad experience advising central government departments, NDPBs & arms’ length bodies, local government, healthcare providers and regulators across the public and independent health and social care sector and schools, academies, further & higher education institutions to frame our response to the Panel’s call for evidence. We have also reflected on our experience defending (and occasionally bringing) judicial review proceedings on behalf of public bodies in subject matter areas as diverse as health and social care, education, governance and jurisdictional issues, housing, regulatory, planning and environmental law.
We are delighted to now be able to share our submission with you.
Summary of our response
Judicial review provides a powerful mechanism for ensuring that the rule of law is upheld. It allows individuals and organisations to challenge decisions taken by public bodies, ministers, officials and other bodies performing public functions, and acts as a means of ensuring that those decisions are taken in accordance with the law. In our experience, the prospect of having a decision scrutinised through the judicial review process encourages public bodies to ensure that the decisions they take are robust, well-reasoned and made with public law principles in mind. It also encourages public bodies to carefully consider the level of risk that they are willing to tolerate in any particular situation and to take an informed, risk-based approach to decision making.
Judicial review processes and procedures are sufficiently clear and suitably robust, and the grounds for bringing a judicial review claim strike an appropriate balance between enabling effective public governance while ensuring that citizens and non-governmental organisations are able to scrutinise and to challenge government actions. There is certainly scope for providing greater clarity on some aspects of the law, particularly for litigants in person and those without the benefit of legal representation, but we do not believe that substantive reform to the law on judicial review is necessary.
Key points:
- The processes and procedures for judicial review already have sufficient statutory footing, having been codified in the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (‘CPR’).
- The ‘Administrative Court Judicial Review Guidance 2020’ expands upon and explains the rules and procedures relating to judicial review and provides invaluable guidance for those without the benefit of legal advice and representation.
- While we do not consider that substantive reform to the grounds for bringing a judicial review claim is necessary, there is merit in codifying the grounds for judicial review either through amendments to the CPR or in supplementary court guidance, to make it easier for claimants who are not legally represented to plead their claims effectively. Better pleaded claims would invariably make the procedure more streamlined and more cost-effective for all concerned.
- As the line between the ‘public’ and ‘private’ spheres becomes increasingly blurred and public bodies turn to outsourcing arrangements, mutuals, joint ventures and alternative structures and delivery models to deliver core public functions; there is room for greater clarity on the scope of the ‘public function’ test that is used to determine whether an organisation’s actions and decisions are susceptible to judicial review.
- The limitation periods for bringing judicial review proceedings should not be extended. The requirement for a challenge to be brought promptly is vital - the longer a decision remains open to challenge, the less certainty there can be that the decision is final. This increases the risk for public bodies seeking to implement projects and programs in the public interest and private entities seeking to exploit the opportunities that arise from those actions.
- Although the costs of bringing a judicial review claim are high, they are proportionate given that judicial review should be a remedy of last resort. We do not believe that costs restrict access to justice, but rather ensure that the most meritorious claims are the ones that proceed. However, costs recovery for public bodies is a significant concern and we therefore recommend a number of measures that could be implemented to improve successful defendants’ ability to recover a greater proportion of their costs.
- The remedies available in judicial review are both adequate and appropriate, but it may be beneficial to instigate a new process allowing for a remedy akin to a declaration to be obtained at an early stage in proceedings. This would have the dual benefit of reducing the burden on the court while also reducing the costs risk for all parties to the proceedings.
- The nature of judicial review, which invariably requires the court to decide a specific question of law, limits the value of alternative dispute resolution. Clear guidance regarding when it is, and when it is not, appropriate for complaints to be referred to an Ombudsman is appropriate, which recognises the fundamental difference in the role that the Ombudsmen and the courts play in supervising public bodies.
Next steps
The panel expects to review the evidence and to report to the Lord Chancellor on its findings before the end of the calendar year. The Government has committed to publishing a full response to the Panel’s report, before bringing forward specific proposals for reform. It seems unlikely that specific proposals will be announced before Spring 2021.
Related expertise
You may be interested in...
Legal Update
Section 106 Agreements: I’m not dead yet
Legal Update
Supreme Court will hear Worcestershire case on local authority responsibility for Section 117 Aftercare in April 2023
Legal Update
HXA and YXA failure to remove cases: Key considerations in anticipation of the Supreme Court judgment
Published Article
Combined County Authorities - Key differences to Combined Authorities
Guide
Devolution: a catalyst for long-term, positive change in local communities
Legal Update - Public matters newsletter
Public matters - February 2023
Opinion
Can toilet facilities amount to sex discrimination?
Legal Update
Biodiversity Net Gain — Government publishes consultation response
Opinion
‘Awaab’s Law’- a significant amendment to the Social Housing Regulation Bill
Legal Update
Embargoed Judgments: A Professional Word of Caution
Legal Update
Procurement Bill debarment regime and ECHR issues
Published Article
Digital Twin Technologies: key legal contractual considerations
Guide
Public procurement: key facts and compliance considerations
Press Release
Browne Jacobson’s real estate specialists advise Chesterfield Borough Council on prestigious new development - One Waterside Place
Opinion
Will fixed recoverable costs in housing conditions claims see the light of day?
Online Event
Register to join our Academy: to Register your interest in our next Academy
Legal Update
Government introduces first Streamlined Subsidy Schemes under new regime
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advise High Peak Borough Council on future high street funded acquisition as part of Buxton regeneration vision
Opinion
Term-time school worker entitled to national minimum wage for unworked basic hours
Legal Update - Public matters newsletter
Public matters - January 2023
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advises Natural England on investigation of ‘first in its kind’ sentenced Devon farmer
Published Article
What are freeports and what benefits could they offer?
Legal Update
Dangerous Dogs
Published Article
Reaching cloud nine? Public procurement for cloud-based services
Legal Update
Unlawful delegation of decision-making powers
On-Demand
The Subsidy Control Act 2022. Putting the new regime into practice
Published Article
How the Environment Act affects existing contracts’
Legal Update - Public matters newsletter
Public matters - December 2022
Legal Update
Updated Greening Government Commitments 2021 – 2025 published
Opinion
Is over centralisation hindering economic growth?
Legal Update
Protecting children and their data in the online environment
Press Release
Browne Jacobson helps launch new innovative council company network with Wiltshire Council and Christ Church Business School
Law firm Browne Jacobson has collaborated with Wiltshire Council and Christ Church Business School on the launch event of The Council Company Best Practice and Innovation Network, a platform which brings together academic experts and senior local authority leaders, allowing them to share best practice in relation to council companies.
Legal Update - Public matters newsletter
Public Matters - November 2022
Legal Update
Dipping in and out of the Investment Zones
Announced in September but scrapped on 17 November the investment zone proposals were very short lived. The proposal has now morphed into the proposal for a smaller number of clustered zones earmarked for investment.
Legal Update
Hillside – the end of drop in applications?
On 2 November 2022, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the much awaiting case of Hillside Parks Ltd v Snowdonia National Park Authority [2022] UKSC 30. The Court’s judgment suggests that the long established practice of using drop-in applications is in fact much more restricted than previously thought. This judgment therefore has significant implications for both the developers and local planning authorities.
Published Article
Local authority duties: Up in the air
In ‘failure to remove’ claims, the claimant alleges abuse in the family home and asserts that the local authority should have known about the abuse and/or that they should have removed the claimant from the family home and into care earlier.
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advises Bromley Council on the first social housing initiative of its kind to tackle homelessness
Opinion
Settlement agreements – what are the limitations post Bathgate?
Settlement agreements in an employment context are ordinarily used to provide both parties with certainty following the conclusion of an employment relationship – but what happens when there is alleged discrimination after entering into a settlement agreement?
Legal Update - Public matters newsletter
Public Matters - October 2022
Updates include UK Shared Prosperity Fund, contracts, Subsidy Control Bill, data controller liability, Government Covid-19 procurement and Highway Code revisions.
Legal Update
Investment Zones - getting the country working, building and growing
Investment zones have been introduced by the Conservative party to get the United Kingdom (UK) ‘working, building and growing’. They are to be designated sites which provide time-limited tax incentives, streamlined planning rules and wider support for local growth to encourage investment and accelerate the development of housing and infrastructure that the UK needs to drive economic growth. Processes and requirements that slow down development will be stripped back with the intention of attracting new investment.