The need for judicial review is a particular aspect of many trials with cases of different levels. Here the social position of citizens and their constitutional rights are taken into consideration. The reason is that human factors can be predominant while providing litigation. The paper leads to investigate the objectivity of judicial review in terms of different points of the Constitution and current law base.
specifically for you
for only $16.05 $11/page
Asylum Support Appeals Project (2007) provides a definition of judicial review, as the process by which different courts supervise the actions of governmental organs whose decisions may affect the public. In this respect the idea of public opinion and structures being influential on it are taken into consideration. Here appears the continuation of reasoning about the development of review and its objective evaluation without any point on biases. Decisions are subject to judicial review when governmental bodies, such as BIA and AST, are working and making some actions for the public (ASAP, 2007). In other words, until these bodies are functioning, they provide direct impact on the public. Thus, they are subject to judicial review every single day.
One more touch is presupposed with another tripartite complex of grounds for judicial review, namely: irrationality, illegality, and procedural impropriety (ASAP, 2007). In this respect the reliability of judicial review props up against three main reasons for such grounds: unreasonableness, ultra vires, and unfairness of the decision making body. The thing is that the optimal and mandatory rules for the execution of law can be implied while addressing the previously mentioned three factors. Moreover, they highlight the seriousness of the case and credibility of its provision.
The procedure for applying for judicial review presupposes a reaction of the side interested in it as soon as possible and within three months since the problem appeared (ASAP, 2007). In terms of judicial review aimed at the decision which was made by governmental bodies (AST, Home Office) one must first apply to the courts for permission (ASAP, 2007). Thereupon, the first step should be the adequate reaction on cases which are colored with the need for judicial review, and then the ultimate decision should be weighed. After that the process undergoes some bureaucratic permission of the court. Courts in turn are also interested in substantial and even sufficient interest of the person who touched on this sphere of the law procedures.
Ultra vires is a term in jurisdiction which straightforwardly points out the violation of administrative law and can be valued as a reason for the appeal on judicial review. Forsyth et al (2000, p. 246) defines ultra vires in its common three senses, one of which is “a single, self-sufficient meta-normative principle which provides legitimacy for judicial review of administrative, executive and sometimes legislative action”. Intra vires is the term which outlines the execution of judicial review on grounds of exact principles for the provision of appropriate regulations: “It follows that although the regulations are intra vires the minister’s powers, they are nonetheless invalid because they are vague” (Forsyth et al, 2000).
The primary questions to be asked by the reviewing court include different points in the form of open-ended questions patterned in a particular way. Killeen & James (2007, p. 312) provide an assumption that the content of standard question should not oppose the state of reasonableness: “The standard reasonableness basically involves asking afteri a somewhat probing examination, can the reasons given, when taken as a whole, support the decision?” Hence, the questionnaire should be correlated with the proper details about the judicial review and the traditional performance of trials with the normative vocabulary.
The judicial review is expressly outlined by the Constitution. It is so, because the law is distinct in its apparatus and decision-making mechanism. This is why a relation to the basic law while reviewing is vital and, furthermore, it is obligatory for making constructive decisions and acts. In this respect Bilder (2006, p. 516) admits the truth said once by Martin Luther, namely: “”If the constitution admits of any construction necessarily repugnant to the laws of the state, it is a repeal of them,” for “all acts inconsistent with the constitution are null and void.”
100% original paper
on any topic
done in as little as
Public administration and government are interrelated in their mutual interests to provide impacts on the public opinion and society, particularly. Decision making is the point which unites these parts of administrative power. Thus, when promoting the judicial review the responsible for reviewing part should admit the kind of available remedies. The Northern Ireland Legal Services Commission (2007, p. 3) notes the fact that remedies while reviewing should be of last resort: “The actions taken by practitioners before lodging judicial review papers may have a profound impact upon the final outcome of any application.” Remedies under the public law, which is executed mostly include prerogative remedies, some among them are: quashing orders, prohibiting orders and mandatory orders. Remedies under private law underline remedies of declaration and injunction. Both groups of remedies provide the wholeness of the procedure under analysis.
ASAP 2007, Asylum Support Appeals Project, Introduction to Judicial Review, Web.
Bilder, MS 2006, The Corporate Origins of Judicial Review, Yale Law Journal, Vol. 116.
Forsyth, C, University of Cambridge & Centre for Public Law 2000, Judicial review and the Constitution, Hart Publishing, Glidden, WI.
NILSC 2007, Judicial Review, The Northern Ireland Legal Services Commission, Belfast, 2009. Web.