The curious origins of judicial review

Arvind, T T and Stirton, L (2017) The curious origins of judicial review. Law Quarterly Review, 133. pp. 91-117. ISSN 0023-933X

[img] PDF - Accepted Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial.

Download (263kB)
[img] PDF (For REF only) - Published Version
Restricted to SRO admin only

Download (375kB)

Abstract

This article tells the story of the birth of modern judicial review. In the conventional account, the judge-led development of judicial review is one of the great successes of the twentieth century common law: “the greatest achievement of my judicial lifetime”, as Lord Diplock famously put it. On this interpretation, from the mid-twentieth century onwards, the judiciary abandoned its earlier quiescence and, building on doctrines, approaches and remedies that had been used to control inferior tribunals since Victorian times, fashioned a new body of law capable of subordinating the administrative state to the rule of law. The modern law is thus seen as representing the same common law commitment to the rule of law seen in early cases such as Entick v Carrington and Cooper v Wandsworth. This article challenges this story of continuous unbroken development. On the face of it, the cases from Ridge to GCHQ did indeed draw on an older line of case law. Yet, as we demonstrate, the 1960s and 1970s were a transformative period in administrative law. Underlying the seeming doctrinal doctrinal continuity and consolidation, lay a deeper conceptual and theoretical discontinuity—a fundamental shift of approach from a ‘mediating’ conception of administrative law to a ‘public’ conception. While the motives underlying this shift were laudable, the resulting system of judicial review has nevertheless failed to achieve its objectives. We argue that the source of the problems lies in a system of judicial review designed to eschew questions of “merit”, and that truly addressing the problem will require us to revisit the issues which were at the forefront of debate in the first half of this century, but which have never received a satisfactory resolution.

Item Type: Article
Keywords: Judicial Review, Administrative Justice, Lord Diplock
Schools and Departments: School of Law, Politics and Sociology > Law
Subjects: K Law > K Law in General. Comparative and uniform Law. Jurisprudence > K0140 History of Law
K Law > KD Law of the United Kingdom and Ireland
Depositing User: Lindsay Stirton
Date Deposited: 04 Mar 2016 07:31
Last Modified: 05 Mar 2021 16:30
URI: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/59837

View download statistics for this item

📧 Request an update