London Daily

Focus on the big picture.
Friday, Aug 22, 2025

Are judges about to be neutered?

Are judges about to be neutered?

It arguably became an issue in the public's mind with a headline: Enemies of the People.

The Daily Mail's thundering headline attacking judges in the first Brexit case

So wrote the Daily Mail about judges who said only Parliament could trigger Brexit, rather than the prime minister.

Five years on, and the government plans to change Judicial Review (JR) - the tool behind that decision - and one of the most important features of the legal landscape.

Supporters of the plan to reform JR say its essential to prevent the courts being clogged up with meritless cases - and to stop judges taking political decisions.

But opponents say those claims don't stack up - and believe a significant act of constitutional reform is being driven by political revenge.

What is Judicial Review?


*  A Judicial Review is a High Court case in which someone asks a judge to examine whether a minister, official or public body broke the law in how they took a decision

*  It's not new - and every modern democracy has a comparable tool

*  The most famous British JR is the Supreme Court's ruling that Boris Johnson unlawfully shut down Parliament amid the Brexit political crisis

*  Most JRs go unnoticed - but they play a crucial role in good governance for many ordinary people who feel they have been wronged - people like Lucy Burke

Why Lucy turned to the law
Lucy and her son Danny

Lucy Burke's 20-year-old son Danny is a keen weight-lifter and talented skier. He also has autism and a learning disability so he needs help with a range of everyday things.

The National Institute of Clinical Excellence issued guidance that meant people like Danny could be denied critical care if hospitals were overwhelmed during the pandemic.

"That was absolutely terrifying," said Lucy. "Danny lives with something which is a stable lifelong difference, but the idea his dependence on others would be used in a critical care situation was really concerning. Nobody had stopped to think about that."

And so Lucy began a JR, warning Nice it would end up in court unless it thought again.

It's worth noting that her case is very similar to most of the 4,000 JRs every year - a simple concern of an injustice, that a court is being asked to examine.

Why are JRs controversial?


Only about 5% of JR claims ever reach court and less than half are successful, as detailed in the independent review of the power, commissioned by the government.

Critics claim many JRs have grown out of control and have led judges into politics, as their courtrooms are used to fight policy battles that should be left to Parliament.

The right-leaning think tank Policy Exchange - which has championed reforming JR - has listed some of these controversies.

While JRs have grown in use over the last 70 years, that seems to be because there are more state agencies with legal powers that the courts need to inevitably oversee.

And the government's hand-picked independent panel concluded that, in general, judges are not overstepping the mark.


However, the government has decided to press on with reforms in a bill now before Parliament.

Lord Chancellor Robert Buckland - the minister in charge of the legal system - proposes:

*  Creating a new way for judges to delay when the government has to act on a defeat in the courts, to give it more time to respond

*  Allowing judges to rule that while the government has broken the law, it does not need to do anything to retrospectively fix the mistake

*  Banning a specific form of last-ditch appeal in immigration cases, known as "Cart JRs"

The most interesting thing is what's hidden in the legal weeds. The government's independent review rejected a repeatedly-floated idea to exclude entire classes of ministerial decisions from court scrutiny.

These so-called "ouster clauses" could, for example, be created to prevent courts examining how a prime minister shuts down Parliament.

That explicit proposal is not in the bill - but the Ministry of Justice says the wording to outlaw Cart JRs could be a "template" to create more ouster clauses in the future. So the idea is not quite dead - and the final wording passed by Parliament may dictate whether ministers get an opportunity to have another go by a back door.

Is tension between judges and ministers new?


Sir Jonathan Jones QC was until last year the Treasury Solicitor - the head of government's elite in-house lawyers who spend their days defending judicial review claims.

His teams advise decision-makers how to act within the law - there's even a comprehensive guide to JR-proofing policy-making, which is a blueprint to good government.

He says during his career he saw no evidence judges were taking political decisions - but identifying legally bad ones when presented with the evidence.

"The truth is that the government wins most cases," says Sir Jonathan. "When it doesn't, there is normally a good reason why. It's not because the judges are just going off on one."

He argues that governments of all colours get frustrated with the courts as they find it harder to get things done as quickly as their manifesto had suggested.

"History has shown that ouster clauses don't work," says Sir Jonathan. "In the end, who's going to tell you where the limits of the law are, if it's not the courts?"

Algorithm exam grades: Controversial Covid plan was targeted by a JR until the government abandoned it


Professor Richard Ekins of the University of Oxford and head of Policy Exchange's Judicial Review has however urged the government to go further to correct the legal and political balance.

"The Judicial Review and Courts Bill is a welcome first step in the wider project of restoring the UK's traditional political constitution and vindicating the rule of law," he says.

"It has always been open to Parliament to reverse judgments of our highest courts and the Bill's measures are a carefully considered, limited response.

"This Bill is thus a narrowly framed proposal, which should be the beginning but not the end of the reform process."

Some significant recent judicial reviews:


*  2020: Students threatened to JR the controversial Covid A-Level algorithm. The Department for Education scrapped it rather than go to court

*  2018: The High Court ruled that the Parole Board had acted irrationally in deciding to release serial "Black Cab" rapist John Worboys

*  2017: The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a judicial review that said a controversial fee for access to the Employment Tribunal was unlawful - which had prevented people who had been treated unfairly from taking their boss to court

The Public Law Project could not disagree more. The campaign group's director Jo Hickman argues it's still difficult to understand what the government is trying to fix.

It asked the statistics watchdog to look at the figures used by the government to justify banning Cart JRs as a waste of time and money. The regulator concluded the government's case was indeed over simplistic.

"Throughout this process, the evidence to substantiate proposals has been either non-existent, misleading, or consistently hidden from view," says Ms Hickman.

"Not being able to undo the past consequences of an unlawful decision could undermine the point of having a legal mechanism that holds public authorities to account. This could plainly lead to some very unjust outcomes."

What happened to Lucy Burke's case?


Which brings me back to Lucy Burke and her son Danny who challenged the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's Covid guidance.

When the agency received her JR threat, it was enough of a cocked legal pistol to make it scrap and rewrite its critical care guidance there and then.

And that is how many JRs actually end - with a decision revised long before the matter gets into court.

"Judicial review is so important," says Lucy. "I was really glad that it was resolved early, but I would have been prepared to pursue it had it not been. How else will ordinary people challenge decisions by big powerful entities?"


The most famous of Judicial Reviews: The Supreme court's ruling that Boris Johnson had unlawfully shut down Parliament


Newsletter

Related Articles

0:00
0:00
Close
After 200,000 Orders in 2 Minutes: Xiaomi Accelerates Marketing in Europe
Ukraine Declares De Facto War on Hungary and Slovakia with Terror Drone Strikes on Their Gas Lifeline
Animated K-pop Musical ‘KPop Demon Hunters’ Becomes Netflix’s Most-Watched Original Animated Film
New York Appeals Court Voids Nearly $500 Million Civil Fraud Penalty Against Trump While Upholding Fraud Liability
Elon Musk tweeted, “Europe is dying”
Far-Right Activist Convicted of Incitement Changes Gender and Demands: "Send Me to a Women’s Prison" | The Storm in Germany
Hungary Criticizes Ukraine: "Violating Our Sovereignty"
Will this be the first country to return to negative interest rates?
Child-free hotels spark controversy
North Korea is where this 95-year-old wants to die. South Korea won’t let him go. Is this our ally or a human rights enemy?
Hong Kong Launches Regulatory Regime and Trials for HKD-Backed Stablecoins
China rehearses September 3 Victory Day parade as imagery points to ‘loyal wingman’ FH-97 family presence
Trump Called Viktor Orbán: "Why Are You Using the Veto"
Horror in the Skies: Plane Engine Exploded, Passengers Sent Farewell Messages
MSNBC Rebrands as MS NOW Amid Comcast’s Cable Spin-Off
AI in Policing: Draft One Helps Speed Up Reports but Raises Legal and Ethical Concerns
Shame in Norway: Crown Princess’s Son Accused of Four Rapes
Apple Begins Simultaneous iPhone 17 Production in India and China
A Robot to Give Birth: The Chinese Announcement That Shakes the World
Finnish MP Dies by Suicide in Parliament Building
Outrage in the Tennis World After Jannik Sinner’s Withdrawal Storm
William and Kate Are Moving House – and the New Neighbors Were Evicted
Class Action Lawsuit Against Volkswagen: Steering Wheel Switches Cause Accidents
Taylor Swift on the Way to the Super Bowl? All the Clues Stirring Up Fans
Dogfights in the Skies: Airbus on Track to Overtake Boeing and Claim Aviation Supremacy
Tim Cook Promises an AI Revolution at Apple: "One of the Most Significant Technologies of Our Generation"
Apple Expands Social Media Presence in China With RedNote Account Ahead of iPhone 17 Launch
Are AI Data Centres the Infrastructure of the Future or the Next Crisis?
Cambridge Dictionary Adds 'Skibidi,' 'Delulu,' and 'Tradwife' Amid Surge of Online Slang
Bill Barr Testifies No Evidence Implicated Trump in Epstein Case; DOJ Set to Release Records
Zelenskyy Returns to White House Flanked by European Allies as Trump Pressures Land-Swap Deal with Putin
The CEO Who Replaced 80% of Employees for the AI Revolution: "I Would Do It Again"
Emails Worth Billions: How Airlines Generate Huge Profits
Character.ai Bets on Future of AI Companionship
China Ramps Up Tax Crackdown on Overseas Investments
Japanese Office Furniture Maker Expands into Bomb Shelter Market
Intel Shares Surge on Possible U.S. Government Investment
Hurricane Erin Threatens U.S. East Coast with Dangerous Surf
EU Blocks Trade Statement Over Digital Rule Dispute
EU Sends Record Aid as Spain Battles Wildfires
JPMorgan Plans New Canary Wharf Tower
Zelenskyy and his allies say they will press Trump on security guarantees
Beijing is moving into gold and other assets, diversifying away from the dollar
Escalating Clashes in Serbia as Anti-Government Protests Spread Nationwide
The Drought in Britain and the Strange Request from the Government to Delete Old Emails
Category 5 Hurricane in the Caribbean: 'Catastrophic Storm' with Winds of 255 km/h
"No, Thanks": The Mathematical Genius Who Turned Down 1.5 Billion Dollars from Zuckerberg
The surprising hero, the ugly incident, and the criticism despite victory: "Liverpool’s defense exposed in full"
Digital Humans Move Beyond Sci-Fi: From Virtual DJs to AI Customer Agents
YouTube will start using AI to guess your age. If it’s wrong, you’ll have to prove it
×