1. Judicial Review 1 Introduction and Scope of Lectures
Concerned with control of exercise of discretionary powers by public bodies
N.B. the distinction between appeal and review -- see Brightman LJ in Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans [1982] 1 WLR 1155, 1174.
Since C.C.S.U. v. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 prerogative powers have also been reviewable.

2. Judicial Review 1 Procedure and Remedies
This is governed by CPR PD54 (Judicial Review) 2000.
Remedies available are :
Quashing Order (certiorari), Prohibiting Order (prohibition)
Mandatory Order (mandamus), injunction
Declaration, damages.

3. Judicial Review 1 Note 1. Time Limits
2. The process involves two stages : permission and full hearing. What is the purpose of the permission stage?
3. All remedies are discretionary – see R v. Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal ex p Caswell [1990] 2 All ER 434.
4. Case citations – R (A) v. B or R v. B ex p A.

4. Judicial Review 1 Who is susceptible to judicial review?
Standing or Locus Standi
‘Sufficient Interest.’
Note that this must be a legal interest.
If the claim is made under the HRA 1998, then the applicant must be a victim – s.7(3) HRA 1998

5. Judicial Review 1 Pressure Groups and Standing
See R v. IRC ex parte National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd. [1982] AC 617
R v. Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Rose Theatre Trust [1990] 1 QB 504
R v. Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ex parte World Development Movement [1995] 1 All ER 611

6. Judicial Review 1 Is the test for Standing too Restrictive?
Note the limitations on the effect of remedies in judicial review.
GROUNDS FOR REVIEW
These were set out by Lord Diplock in C.C.S.U. v. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374
These grounds are now the accepted norm.

7. Judicial Review 1
C.C.S.U. v. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374
FACTS
Divisional Court’s Decision
Mrs Thatcher trumps the Union in the Court of Appeal
The House of Lords settle the issue.

8. Judicial Review 1
In CCSU, Lord Diplock identified three grounds of review and added that a fourth might come into play in the future. The grounds are:
1. Illegality
2. Irrationality
3. Procedural Impropriety
(4. Proportionality)