Efficacy of Judicial Review in Safeguarding Individuals Against Arbitrary Executive Actions in the UK
In the UK, judicial review is sufficient to defend the individual against the arbitrary actions of the executive.
Critically evaluate this statement.
The essay requires you to:
concisely explain judicial review as outlined in the UK constitution
analyse how judicial review can be used to defend the individual against the arbitrary actions of the executive
evaluate whether judicial review is sufficient to defend the individual against the arbitrary actions of the executive
throughout the entire essay, develop an argument which will either agree or disagree with the statement.
It should be 1800 words long and contain legal case references
The Efficacy of Judicial Review in Safeguarding Individuals Against Arbitrary Executive Actions in The UK
Name
Course
Professor
Institution
City
Date
Evaluation of the statement
Justice is key in governance; the judiciary arm should have adequate procedures and processes to uphold justice, especially for minors in society. One of the ways to ensure justice prevails is by strengthening the Judicial review. Judicial review is an essential check on arbitrary government overreach, enabling courts to assess executive decisions for legality and reasonableness. Through reasoned analysis of pertinent statutes, judicial precedent, and public policy concerns, the judiciary may determine whether a given act by ministers or public bodies operates within the proper bounds of executive power or infringes protected rights. Judicial review gives citizens a robust legal mechanism to challenge perceived executive overreach. The modern basis for judicial review in the UK emerged from landmark cases like Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission (1969), which firmly established courts' jurisdiction to assess administrative decisions impacting substantial rights against principles of legality (Mclnnes, n.d, p 40-46). This is built upon venerable precedents like Entick v Carrington (1765), stipulating that executive officers must demonstrate lawful authority for interfering with the protected legal interests of subjects (Burset and Arvind, n.d, p 265-298). By allowing judges to scrutinize the rationality behind state actions, judicial review prevents leaders from using power on mere whims or personal prejudices. Should Secretary of State decrees or local council planning initiatives impact substantive rights, affected individuals may petition for review. The relevant court will then apply principles of procedural fairness, weighing whether the public body observed due process obligations, took only relevant considerations into account, and avoided irrational conclusions in the situation at hand. Judges may strike down the action Where they find the executive process or conclusions wanting. The action pushes leaders to demonstrably justify administrative decisions by facts and law, not arbitrary preference. While judicial review represents an imperfect remedy, subject to the same biases that may distort executive policymaking itself, on balance, courts have exercised review powers equitably.
Landmark cases limiting Home Secretaries’ detention purview and responding to aluminium tariff overextension display judiciary checking even for democratically elected officials. Recent Supreme Court decisions require more transparent prorogation processes, and Scottish Parliament consultation on Brexit exemplifies rigorous interrogation of executive action to affirm the rule of law. That multiple cases across time feature citizens successfully invoking