Any judicial decision, including a verdict, represents the opinion and conclusions of a person, even if one has a special judicial authority, special status, and exceptional competence. Therefore, on the one hand, the criminal procedural system cannot fail to take into account at the institutional level that, by its very nature, it is inherent in human error. On the other hand, that kind of assumption must not jeopardize the judiciary’s authority and the fundamental duty to abide by judicial decisions. Therefore, arguments about the errors inherent in them cannot last indefinitely. Finally, only another person endowed with the same status can correct the hypothetical and somewhat even natural errors of one person with the status of a judge. Otherwise, the independence of the judiciary would be out of the question, and justice would be transformed from a systemic government function into a fiction. This is why the process of judicial review is a necessary procedure to ensure the fairness of justice. The judicial review process consists of seven basic steps.
The first is pre-action correspondence. Before applying for permission for judicial review to the court that starts the proceedings, the petitioners must follow protocol before action is taken1. To do this, the applicant must send a letter to the state agency outlining the grounds on which he or she plans to challenge the decision or action taken. This letter allows the government agency to review the grounds for challenging the decision before filing an application in court with the possibility of reaching an agreement between the parties without litigation. The next step is an application for permission to pursue judicial review. If no agreement can be reached between the parties, a formal application for permission to pursue judicial review will be filed with the court setting forth the grounds for judicial review. This step is necessary to weed out cases that do not have a realistic prospect of success. It involves filling out the form, preparing detailed 1reasons for the review, and filing with it any supporting evidence that may be required.
The following stages of case review, the third and fourth, may run concurrently and depend on whether or not the case is accepted for further review. Depending on the court’s decision, they are to prepare documents and schedule a time for the review. The fifth step, the issuance of judicial review permits, is critical. The sixth step of the process is optional. It implies that an additional hearing may be requested if permission for judicial review is denied. At it, oral arguments can be made as to why permission should have been granted. If this is successful, the court will grant judicial review. The seventh step in the process is called a full judicial review hearing. If permission for judicial review is granted, but the parties still cannot reach an agreement, the case may go to a full judicial review hearing, where a judge will hear the lawsuit. Cases usually go this far because of the cost of doing so and the risk of being liable for the other parties’ costs if they lose.
In the United Kingdom, judicial review is concerned with public law, in which a judge reviews a decision or action of a public authority and its legality. Claims are often based on the allegation that a public authority has made an unlawful decision and that the individual has no alternative remedy. Until recently, the courts had to enforce the will of Parliament. Therefore, they were not allowed to review its acts themselves, and judicial review was not present for primary laws2. Over time, however, this position changed because of the active role that the judiciary began to play in this regard. Parliamentary sovereignty has long been considered the British constitution’s primary and most fundamental principle. Only Parliament has the power to make or repeal any legislation. Moreover, no one, including the courts, has the power to question it or repeal it. In the United Kingdom, not only the public and Parliament but also the judiciary are subject to this thesis.
Thus, parliamentary sovereignty remains a general principle of the constitution of the United Kingdom. Recently, however, this concept has begun to change. This is mainly because judges have begun to believe in the concept of judicial activism and the need to monitor abuses of power as well as protect individual rights. The same is true of the interaction between the rule of law and the separation of powers. The rule of law is the opposite of the rule of power. This means the supremacy of law over the supremacy of the individual will. As in all political agendas, the rule of law demands is challenged. The doctrine of separation of powers is also a complex and contested concept. So, the extent to which it supports the rule of law depends partly on how its claims are understood. In this case, judicial review is a way of protecting the rule of law.
References
Corwin E, The doctrine of judicial review: Its legal and historical basis and other essays (Routledge, 2017)
Florczak-Wątor M, Judicial law-making in European constitutional courts (Routledge, 2020) Web.