IRAL / Faulks Review
The Independent Review of Administrative Law
Justice & Legal
Independent panel review of judicial review in England and Wales, examining whether the right balance is struck between citizens' rights to challenge executive decisions and the need for effective government. Made two substantive recommendations and four procedural recommendations.
6recommendations
6Not Yet Responded
Government Response
Government accepted the two substantive recommendations, reversing the Cart decision and introducing suspended quashing orders, both enacted in the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022.
18 March 2021
Recommendations
Recommendation 3.68
We recommend that section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 be amended to make it clear that the courts have the power to make suspended quashing orders in appropriate cases. This could be done through the insertion into section 31 of a new subsection (4A), which would read, "On an application for judicial review the High Court may suspended any quashing order that it makes, and provide that the order will not take effect if certain conditions specified by the High Court are satisfied within a certain time period."
Recommendation 4.168
The Panel recommends that criteria for permitting interventions in judicial review cases should be developed and published, perhaps in the Guidance for the Administrative Court.
Recommendation 8(g)
Parliament ought to intervene to reverse Cart (Chapter 3).
Recommendation 8(h)
Parliament ought to provide (or the judges should develop) a remedy of suspension to alleviate the bluntness of a quashing order (Chapter 3).
Recommendation 8(j)
We do, however, think that there may well be merit in abolishing the requirement of promptitude in the current rule that (with exceptions) claims for judicial review must not only be brought within three months, but promptly as well (Chapter 4).
Recommendation 8(k)
Further improvements to the law on procedure may be sought through non-legislative means. The courts should be encouraged to do more to address the issue of standing in claims that come before them. Criteria should be developed and publicised for determining when the courts will hear from an intervener in a claim for judicial review; and the government should revisit the guidance it currently follows in determining how to discharge its duty of candour to the court hearing a claim for judicial review against it (Chapter 4).