Judicial Review

Judicial review is a process by which the courts help to ensure that public bodies (or private bodies carrying out a public function) behave lawfully.

It works by enabling people to challenge a public law decision that has adversely impacted them or, in certain circumstances, where they have sufficient interest in the issues relating to the decision.

Decisions, acts, and failures to act by public bodies (or private bodies carrying out a public function) are all potentially subject to an application for judicial review.

Hickman & Rose have advised on and acted in numerous applications for judicial review. Our lawyers have acted in judicial review matters at the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. The firm’s work in the area has focused particularly on challenges relating to the criminal justice system.

Experience

Hickman & Rose are highly experienced in judicial review matters. Our lawyers provide expert advice to those considering challenging a public law decision, and those who are either an Interested Party or who are considering applying to intervene in judicial review proceedings. The firm’s work in this area includes:

• Acting for the charity INQUEST as an Intervener initially in the Court of Appeal and then the Supreme Court in R (Maughan) v HM Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire [2020] UKSC 46, in which the Supreme Court determined that the standard of proof for all short-form conclusions at an inquest is the balance of probabilities.
• Challenging the ‘householder defence’ provision as being incompatible with Article 2 ECHR; R (Collins) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWHC 6060.
• Challenging the decision of the Independent Police Complaints Commission in respect of its finding that the Metropolitan Police Service had provided the applicant with sufficient information about the findings made by its investigating officer in respect of his initial complaint based on the fact that there was secret intelligence material involved. The issues was ultimately decided by the Court of Appeal; R (Miah) v the Independent Police Complaints Commission and another [2017] EWCA Civ 2108.
• Making multiple challenges relating to the lawfulness of the administration of causations by the police.
• Acting for the mother of Azelle Rodney as an Interested Party in the three claims for judicial review brought against the Chairman of the Azelle Rodney Inquir;y R (on the application of E) v Chairman of the Inquiry into the Death of Azelle Rodney Inquiry [2012] EWHC 563 (Admin); R (on the application of the Metropolitan Police Service) v The Chairman of the Inquiry into the death of Azelle Rodney [2012] EWHA 2783 (Admin); E7 (an officer of the Metropolitan Police) v Sir Christopher Holland (in his capacity as Chairman of the Azelle Rodney Inquiry) [2014] EWHC 452 (Admin).
• Challenging the definition of a ‘miscarriage of justice’ in respect of compensation for a wrongful conviction, in a case ultimately decided by the Supreme Court; R (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] EKSC 18.
• Acting for companies in the a British Overseas Territory challenging the decisions of an Airport Authority.

In addition to the above, Hickman & Rose are experienced in assisting individuals and organisations in making complaints, particularly those relating to the criminal justice system, which may result in the issue of concern being resolved. However, if this is not the case, we can advise in relation to the prospects of a successful claim for judicial review.