header-logo header-logo

23 May 2013 / Dr Jon Robins
Issue: 7561 / Categories: Opinion , Judicial review
printer mail-detail

Get your facts straight

hires_13

The government needs to review its case against judicial review, says Jon Robins

“The ‘144’ figure touted by the Lord Chancellor is not just misleading, it’s meaningless.”

On Radio 4’s Today programme at the end of last month the Lord Chancellor, Chris Grayling, offered the following killer statistic by way of illustration of the true horror of the judicial review “problem”. “In 2011, there were 11,359 applications for judicial review,” he told listeners. “In the end, 144 were successful and all of the rest of them tied up government lawyers, local authority lawyers in time, in expense for a huge number of cases of which virtually none were successful.”

Damning statistics?

So, on our Lord Chancellor’s analysis, less than 1.5% of judicial reviews (JRs) were successful which, surely, suggests that something has gone very wrong with this most crucial legal mechanism for holding government and its agencies to account. “We’re not saying there shouldn’t be JR,” Grayling told John Humphrys. “We’re not saying that members of the public and organisations should not be able to challenge public bodies; but what we’re

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll