Faulks Inquiry

- Need for JR
- Responding to the Independent Review of Administrative Law’s call for evidence,
Lawyers in Local Government, a membership body for council lawyers, monitoring
and governance officers, said it strongly believed there was a 'positive case for the
ongoing scrutiny of public decision making'.
- In July, the Ministry of Justice announced that a panel of experts, chaired by Lord
Edward Faulks QC, would undertake an independent review of administrative law to
ascertain whether there is a need to reform judicial review.
- The review is to look at ‘whether the right balance is being struck between the rights
of citizens to challenge executive decisions and the need for effective and efficient
government’.
- Specifically, it would consider:
 Whether the terms of Judicial Review should be written into law
 Whether certain executive decisions should be decided on by judges
 Which grounds and remedies should be available in claims brought against the
government
 Any further procedural reforms to Judicial Review, such as timings and the
appeal process
- The review will focus on whether the terms of judicial review should be codified into
statute, whether particular political decisions should be decided on by judges, the
availability of certain grounds and remedies brought against the government and
any procedural reforms to judicial review -> executive control over the judiciary.
- Lord Faulks, QC, says it is “quite impossible” that his inquiry will recommend the
judicial review process be abolished

Another note is on European standards which we are moving away from:

EU law is much more interpretative and purposive than English law which is more literal.
Proportionality is hinting at the European approach more even though we have now moved
away from EU law by leaving the EU. Might be a backlash from executive now that we’re
moving away from it.