Abstract
The UK Ministry of Justice published a consultation paper in September 2013 proposing significant changes to arrangements for judicial review of government action. In this paper, the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law responds to the consultation. It addresses three key issues raised by the consultation. First, the paper argues that proposals to narrow the test for standing are problematic and misconceive the constitutional purpose of judicial review. Second, the paper criticises the proposal to limit judicial review of procedural defects that made no difference to the outcome, arguing that such defects are practically hard to identify and that, in any event, procedural fairness is valuable in itself, not just instrumentally. Third, the paper argues that proposals to rebalance financial burdens would risk creating a justice gap by pricing some prospective litigants out of judicial review.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
