Disputes Quick Read – 3 / 32 观点
The Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL) published on 18 March 2021 was partly a political response from the UK government to two Brexit-related Supreme Court decisions: R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland.
These much-publicised decisions considered the UK triggering Article 50 without an Act of Parliament, and the prorogation of Parliament, respectively – both highly charged issues. Fittingly, the commissioning of the IRAL was itself controversial, with critics accusing the government of being "bent on constitutional destruction".
The IRAL panel was up front about its review being a political hot potato, and was at pains to say it had been afforded neither the resources nor time to complete a comprehensive review of judicial review. Its recommendations are accordingly restrained.
Only two legislative recommendations were made:
Those amendments aside, the status quo was broadly advocated for. The panel made no recommendations on codification, non-justiciability or the grounds of review.
That does not mean change may not be on the horizon. The Ministry of Justice has launched its consultation which closes on 29 April 2021, implementing its Manifesto commitment to ensure judicial review is "not abused to conduct politics or to create needless delays". That consultation builds on the IRAL's recommendations, including some proposed procedural changes (to be taken forward by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee):
It also considers further reforms, including:
We look forward to seeing whether these suggestions are taken forward and will report any significant changes to the process as they arise.
To discuss the issues raised in this article in more detail, please reach out to a member of our Disputes & Investigations team.
作者 James Bryden
作者 Stuart Broom
The Future of Litigation