We have been invited to submit evidence to assist the panel in considering options for reform of judicial review principles and procedures - contribute to the development of our response.
This article is taken from September's public matters newsletter. Click here to view more articles from this issue.
Judicial review provides a powerful mechanism for ensuring that the rule of law is upheld in the United Kingdom. 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 such decisions are taken in accordance with the law. It effectively operates to regulate the relationship between the citizen and the state.
In R (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions  2 AC 295, Lord Hoffman said that:
“The principles of judicial review give effect to the rule of law. They ensure that administrative decisions will be taken rationally, in accordance with a fair procedure and within the powers conferred by Parliament.”
However, judicial review is not without criticism. Many legal practitioners, academics and commentators have expressed concern about the development of judicial review principles over the last half century or so. Critics argue that the expansion of judicial review through decided cases has resulted in a situation in which the courts are increasingly expected to intervene in matters of public policy that should rightly be reserved to democratically elected parliamentarians and ministers. The administrative burden that defending judicial review proceedings imposes on public bodies, including in respect of costs, is increasingly well understood.
On 12 December 2019 the Government was elected on a manifesto in which they pledged:
“After Brexit we also need to look at the broader aspects of our constitution: the relationship between the Government, Parliament and the courts; the functioning of the Royal Prerogative; the role of the House of Lords; and access to justice for ordinary people. The ability of our security services to defend us against terrorism and organised crime is critical. We will update the Human Rights Act and administrative law to ensure that there is a proper balance between the rights of individuals, our vital national security and effective government. We will ensure that judicial review is available to protect the rights of the individuals against an overbearing state, while ensuring that it is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays. In our first year we will set up a Constitution, Democracy & Rights Commission that will examine these issues in depth, and come up with proposals to restore trust in our institutions and in how our democracy operates.”
The Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL), which was launched on 31 July 2020, is intended to implement this manifesto commitment.
The Terms of Reference for the Independent Review of Administrative Law explain that the Panel should “bear in mind how the legitimate interest in the citizen being able to challenge the lawfulness of executive action through the courts can be properly balanced with the role of the executive to govern effectively under the law”. It appears that the government are looking to redraw this balance.
The panel are specifically instructed to consider:
On 7 September the Independent Review of Administrative Law secretariat published a call for evidence in the form of a questionnaire to government departments and a survey of people who have direct experience in judicial review cases, including those who provide services to claimants and defendants involved in such cases, from professionals who practice in this area of law; as well as from observers of, and commentators on, the process.
Government departments are invited to submit their views on:
Section 2 of the call for evidence is headed ‘codification and clarity’, but the questions posed suggest that there is scope for wider ranging reform of judicial review principles. Respondents are asked whether there is case for codifying judicial review in statute, to improve certainty and clarity or ‘for other ends’, and whether certain decisions and powers should be put beyond the scope of judicial review.
Section 3 addresses the processes and procedures that govern judicial review challenges. Respondents are asked to submit evidence on the timescales in which judicial review claims may be brought, and whether there needs to be greater flexibility in, or statutory control over, the remedies available to successful claimants.
Of particular interest to public authorities is likely to be the issue of costs. The call for evidence invites interested parties to submit their views on whether the costs in judicial review proceedings are proportionate, and whether the rules regarding costs are too lenient, or too leniently applied by the courts.
There can be no doubt that the availability of cost capping orders, the removal of legal aid for judicial review proceedings, and the ability of claimants to bring proceedings whether or not they have the means to pay a defendant’s costs, mean that defendants invariably bear the majority of the costs of judicial review proceedings, even when they are successful at permission stage or at substantive hearing. The panel will therefore consider the extent to which the burden of bearing the costs of judicial review proceedings should be more evenly shared between claimants and defendants.
Footnote F to the Terms of Reference acknowledges that modifications to the substantive law on judicial review would affect all cases involving public law decision making. However, it is unclear at this stage how any proposals for reform arising from the review may seek to address unintended consequences in non-judicial review proceedings.
Judicial review grounds are raised in a variety of statutory appeals and non-public law proceedings, including:
These examples illustrate the wide ranging ways in which public authorities use public law to protect themselves and to regulate the rights of citizens. It is unclear how the government intends to mitigate the risk of unintended consequences in the wider public sector.
We have been invited to submit evidence to assist the panel in considering options for reform of judicial review principles and procedures. We are currently reflecting on the questions posed by the panel and we will be drawing on our broad public law expertise and our specific experience in both bringing and defending judicial review claims to inform our response.
We understand that public bodies in central and local government and in devolved administrations will be invited to respond directly to the call for evidence by the Independent Review of Administrative Law secretariat. However, if you would like to contribute to the development of our response then please share your thoughts and experiences with us by emailing Sam Trevorrow. We will publish our response in due course.
The call for evidence closes on 19 October 2020. The panel expects to review the evidence and issue its report to the Lord Chancellor before the end of the year. It is therefore likely that proposals for reform may well be announced by the Government early in 2021.
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.
In the Autumn Statement delivered on 17 November, rises to the National Living Wage and National Minimum Wage rates were announced, to take effect from 1 April 2023.
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.
Settlement agreements are commonplace in an employment context and are ordinarily used to provide the parties to the agreement with certainty following the conclusion of an employment relationship.
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  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.
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.
Across the UK, homelessness is an urgent crisis, and one that is set to grow amid the rising cost of living. Local authorities are at the forefront of responding to this crisis, but with a lack of properties that are suitable for social housing across the UK, vulnerable individuals and families are often housed in temporary accommodation.
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?
Updates include UK Shared Prosperity Fund, contracts, Subsidy Control Bill, data controller liability, Government Covid-19 procurement and Highway Code revisions.
The complex and rather nebulous transitional subsidy control regime set out in the UK-EU Trade and Co-operation Agreement and the UK’s wider international commitments has made it difficult for public authorities and those working with them to proceed with certainty where subsidies are involved.
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.
Created at the end of the Brexit transition period, Retained EU Law is a category of domestic law that consists of EU-derived legislation retained in our domestic legal framework by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This was never intended to be a permanent arrangement as parliament promised to deal with retained EU law through the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (the “Bill”).
It is clear that the digital landscape, often termed cyberspace, is a man-made environment, in which human behaviour dominates and where technology both influences and aids our role in it — through the internet, telecoms and networked computer systems, which are often interdependent. The extent to which any organisation is potentially vulnerable to cyber-attack depends on how well these elements are aligned.
Three months on from the commencement of the new statutory Integrated Care Systems (ICS) Anja Beriro and Gerrard Hanratty reflect on the main themes and issues that have come from the new relationship between local government and health.
The Procurement Bill (the Bill) has now been with us for about four months, during which time there have been a huge number of amendments proposed in the House of Lords (circa 320). Lately, there has been less mention of it — unsurprising, really, given everything else going on in politics recently — but here’s a summary of some of the key issues and themes so far.
Browne Jacobson has been named as a supplier on Crown Commercial Service’s (CCS) Public Sector Legal Services Framework on Lot 1a – full-service provision (England and Wales) and Lot 2a – general service provision (England and Wales).