The Tory plans to repeal the HRA, together with the restricted access to our courts already brought about by
the restriction on judicial review introduced by Gove's predecessor, Chris Grayling, will silence the vulnerable and leave great swaths of executive action unchecked and unaccountable.
Government proposals to impose
restrictions on judicial review could spark a «new generation of satellite litigation», according to the University of Essex and Public Law Project.
Not exact matches
Since taking over from the rather more liberal, Kenneth Clarke Grayling has attacked human rights as «political correctness», proposed dramatic
restrictions to the right of individuals to challenge the state through
judicial review, imposed significant
restrictions on access to lawyers with no - win no - fee cases, moved the government back
on to the course of building more (and bigger) prisons — despite the evidence against them — and is set
on dramatically privatising up to 70 % of the probation service ceding state responsibility for offenders to commercial enterprises.
Restrictions on non-lawyers practicing law seemed as fundamental to our legal system as the hallowed doctrine of
judicial review.
However, Rule 3.15 is actually broader and stricter than the Limitations Act — it places an absolute time
restriction on filing and service of an application for
judicial review.
Such a
restriction on raising matters for the first time
on judicial review is, of course, familiar.
Mitigation of the civil proposals, which include
restrictions on legal aid for
judicial review, seems more unlikely.
In July, Telus filed its own application for a
judicial review over
restrictions on the sale of airwave licenses, after the government blocked the company from acquiring spectrum held by struggling startup Mobilicity.
All
restrictions must be based
on court orders obtained after due process and
judicial review.
It is widely expected that investor - State arbitration should fulfill a role similar to that of
judicial review under domestic administrative and constitutional law, subjecting host State public authority to an understanding of the rule of law that focuses chiefly
on restrictions in the relations between public and private actors.
Our examination of
restrictions on remedies takes account of new limitations introduced following recent government consultations
on judicial review that were animated by concerns about the volume of
judicial review challenges being brought and the abuse of
judicial review for political ends.
At present, a distinction is often drawn between
restrictions imposed by European legislation, for example
on habitat protection, and that offered by domestic law; European requirements are often shown greater deference by decision makers, and by the courts when discretion to quash (in
judicial and statutory
review cases) is considered.
That set the standard for any
judicial review, a standard which equated to that of proportionality when considering the justification for
restrictions on freedom of expression and freedom of assembly permitted by Arts 10 and 11 of the Convention.