‘A one-year-old baby and her mother have won a high court challenge granting her the right to access a healthy food and vitamins scheme from which she was previously barred. Thousands of babies and toddlers similarly denied access to the scheme will now be able to benefit from it.’
The Guardian, 3rd June 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Proposals to restrict judicial review are an affront to the principles of fairness and government accountability and should be dropped, a cross-party group of MPs and peers has said.’
The Guardian, 2nd June 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The Conservative government’s response to the IRAL report has raised plenty of alarm bells from UK constitutional scholars. The widespread observation that the government’s judicial review reform plans appear to go well beyond what the Independent Panel recommended points to a more fundamental problem: that the government seems to proceed from a very partial understanding (at best) of the UK “constitution”.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 1st June 2021
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘This was a judicial review of LB Lewisham’s allocation scheme, and specifically of the operation of the 5 year residence requirement for eligibility to join the housing register and its relation to the ‘reasonable preference’ given to overcrowded households.’
Nearly Legal, 25th May 2021
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘In its “Judicial Review Reform: the Government Response to the Independent Review of Administrative Law” consultation document, the government puts forward a number of suggestions for reform of the concept of “nullity” within UK public law. They suggest among other things that only jurisdictional errors should be deemed void ab initio, and/or that courts ought to have a presumption against a finding of nullity. Though the recent Queen’s speech included a Judicial Review Bill, it made no mention of these specific proposals, suggesting that the government may be minded to shelve these ideas for now. In this post I’ll argue that the government would be well-advised to leave nullity alone.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 24th May 2021
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Hot on the heels of the decision in R (Imam) v London Borough of Croydon (2021) EWHC 739 (Admin) comes this altogether more satisfying decision, Elkundi & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Birmingham City Council (2021) EWHC 1024 (Admin), on the nature and enforceability of the duty under s. 193(2) Housing Act 1996.’
Nearly legal, 20th May 2021
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Mrs Nur lives with her 3 adult daughters, including her daughter Zakiya Abudlahi, who has cerebral palsy and learning difficulties and for whom Mrs Nur is a full time carer. Mrs Nur and Zakiya were living in the PRS when they registered on Birmingham Council’s Housing List in August 2011. In late 2018 Mrs Nur’s landlord sought possession and an order for possession was made on 12 November 2018. The Council accepted they had a homelessness duty towards the family on 22 November and they were granted a tenancy of a house owned by the Council at 89 Jervoise Road. Mrs Nur received that property following a homelessness offer, rather than as an allocation under the scheme.’
Nearly Legal, 16th May 2021
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘What constitutes a change in “circumstances relevant to the decision”? Holly Littlewood considers the practical implications of a recent Upper Tribunal ruling.’
Local Government Lawyer, 14th May 2021
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The Government adopted a recommendation of the Independent Review of Administrative Law that Cart judicial reviews should be abolished. The reasons given by the Review for that recommendation have been criticised on this blog by Joe Tomlinson & Alison Pickup and by Joanna Bell. The Review (and the Government) claimed that there is only a 0.22% rate of success in Cart judicial reviews (“Cart JRs”), which makes the expenditure of judicial resources on dealing with Cart claims disproportionate. Tomlinson & Pickup and Bell noted that this figure is almost certainly incorrect, but they were not able to say what the true rate of success is due to the unavailability of necessary data. To address that, I conducted an unprecedented empirical study concluding that the success rate of Cart reviews is at least over ten times higher than the Review’s calculation. Here, I briefly summarize the results of my study and argue that in the light of that evidence the Government should propose to put the Cart procedure on a statutory footing, but not abolish it.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 5th May 2021
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘R (Lawal) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2021), Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), Unreported, JR/626/2020 (V).
The death of an immigration detainee, as with all prisoners, is rightly subject to legal scrutiny. This is because detainees are completely under the state’s control. Article 2 ECHR requires that the state carry out an effective investigation into all deaths in detention where there is a reasonable suspicion that the death was unnatural. A coroner is required to hold an inquest into all deaths in custody, and specifically a jury inquest where there is reason to suspect the death is violent or unnatural. In this case, a two-judge panel of the Upper Tribunal (President of the Upper Tribunal, Mr Justice Lane, and Upper Tribunal Judge Canavan) found that the respondent Home Secretary had breached her Article 2 procedural obligations in respect of deaths in immigration detention. In particular, she had failed to ensure that crucial witness evidence was secured for use at an inquest and had failed to halt the deportation of a relevant witness.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 29th April 2021
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘A British woman who accused a senior United Arab Emirates royal of sexually assaulting her has issued a formal claim for damages.’
The Guardian, 26th April 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Widespread relief that the panel tasked with conducting an independent review of administrative law did not recommend wholesale reform of judicial review proved short-lived when the lord chancellor revealed that the report was just a “starting point”. It quickly became apparent that the government wants to go much further than Lord Faulks’ recommendations.’
Law Society's Gazette, 26th April 2021
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Boris Johnson’s government takes the view that ours is a time of judicial overreach, necessitating redress in terms of the balance of judicial and executive power. This seems to have been driven by a number of high-profile cases, certain vocal thinktanks which appear to have the ear of government, and a wider constitutional prospectus of enhancing executive power to the detriment of the other branches of state. An endless series of projects and proposals have emerged, designed to remedy the perception of an overmighty judiciary. The Independent Review of Administrative Law, established with a view to curbing the perceived excesses of judicial review, reported recently in relatively tame terms, only to be swiftly followed by a further set of proposals. The Independent Human Rights Act Review potentially paves the way for satiation of long-held Conservative fantasies of amending the Human Rights Act. There are also, if leaks are to be believed, proposals to reform the UK Supreme Court.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 21st April 2021
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘A High Court judge has ordered HS2 to stop felling trees at a wood that inspired Roald Dahl to write Fantastic Mr Fox, ahead of a hearing into whether the government licences were issued legitimately.’
The Independent, 17th April 2021
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Following the approach in Balajigari v SSHD [2019] EWCA Civ 673 (discussed here), the Court of Appeal has held that it is arguable that procedural fairness required the entry clearance officer (ECO) to put suspicions of dishonesty to the entry clearance applicant, one Mr Wahid an advocate of the High Court of Sindh, and that UTJ Frances got it badly wrong by thinking that permission should be refused. In 2009, then 21 years old, Mr Wahid was convicted on his guilty plea entered at the first opportunity to a driving offence. He had permitted a friend to drive his car without a licence or insurance. He received a short driving ban and a fine and penalty, both of which were duly paid. He completed his LLB that year and then made an in-time application for further leave to remain as a student. He studied and completed his LLM in March 2011. He was then granted further leave as a student and was then granted a Tier 1 (PSW) migrant until 4 January 2014. While he was travelling from London to Pakistan in July 2012, security officers at Heathrow Airport found a blunt Spanish butterfly knife on a keychain in his bags which was a prohibited item. Security staff apologised when explaining to Mr Wahid that the police needed to be called as a matter of protocol. He was taken to a police station and interviewed. He was not charged. He said that he was informed that no further action would be taken.’
EIN Blog, 7th April 2021
Source: www.ein.org.uk
‘Amnesty International has published a stark rebuke of the UK government’s stance on human rights, saying that it is “speeding towards the cliff edge” in its policies on housing and immigration, and criticising its seeming determination to end the legal right for the public to challenge government decisions in court.’
The Guardian, 7th April 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Anyone who has ever tried to study judicial review in England and Wales empirically knows it is a little like digging for gold without a metal detector: it is difficult to know where to dig and there is also no guarantee that you will find what you are looking for.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 1st April 2021
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Imam, R (On the Application Of) v The London Borough of Croydon (2021) EWHC 739 (Admin). This is the judgment in a judicial review claim seeking a declaration that Croydon was in breach of its statutory duty under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996 to provide suitable accommodation, and for mandatory relief, that Croydon provide suitable accommodation, and consider the claimant’s application for band 1 housing priority.’
Nearly Legal, 28th March 2021
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The Independent Review of Administrative Law has now reported. For a review process that was unnecessarily quick, the Expert Panel, led by Lord Faulks QC, has produced a substantial and detailed analysis. The Report has rightly drawn broad support from across the political spectrum—even if the Government’s support for the report has been accompanied by a new consultation which departs from the Report’s findings on various important points. No doubt, the focus will now shift to the new consultation. However, in this post we want to respectfully take issue with one of the firm conclusions of the Panel: that Cart judicial reviews ought to be discontinued on the basis they are a disproportionate use of judicial resource.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 29th March 2021
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Ministers could be stopped from using self-destructing messages to conduct government business, following a legal challenge supported by an alliance of transparency campaigners and university archivists.’
The Guardian, 29th March 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024