Public law is the means by which individuals and organisations can challenge public bodies’ decisions and policies on the grounds that they are unlawful or irrational.

A wide variety of bodies are vulnerable to public law challenge. They include government departments, agencies, and ministers; police forces, prisons and courts; and regulatory and supervisory bodies such as the GMC.

One of the most common means of pursuing a public law challenge is by means of judicial review. But public law issues can also be pursued through civil claims for damages, inquests, Ombudsman and complaints schemes, and public inquiries.

Hickman & Rose have substantial experience and expertise in all aspects of public law, and in particular in relation to challenges relating to the criminal justice system.

Public law principles

All public bodies, as well as private organisations which carry out a public function, must act in accordance with public law principles. This means they must:

Act lawfully;
Act rationally;
Act fairly;
Weigh the impact of any decision they make against an individual’s rights and interests where issues of European law or Human Rights are concerned;
Not delay or not do things;
Not fail to provide information;
Not fail to investigate.

Examples of ways in which public law challenges can be brought

Judicial Review

A judicial review is one means by which an organisation or individual can challenge the final decision of a public body or organisation carrying out a public function.

Complaints

Many public bodies have complaints procedures, or an ombudsman to whom a complaint can be made. Anyone considering a public law challenge is usually well advised to pursue the complaint route first. Doing so may resolve the problem, and such routes – if available – are expected to be followed, prior to contemplating judicial review proceedings.

Victims’ Right of Review

Police forces and the CPS have p Victims’ Right of Review schemes to enable victims of crime to ask for a review of a decision not to prosecute. Whilst the right to ask for a review does not arise in all circumstances, these schemes can be effective and efficient ways of challenging decisions made by criminal justice bodies.

At the time of writing the Independent Office for Police Conduct was in the process of setting up its own Victims’ Right of Review scheme.

Criminal Justice public law challenges

Hickman & Rose have particular expertise in bringing public law challenges relating to the criminal justice system in the following areas:

Unlawful searches of homes and business premises
Unlawful arrest and detention
Disclosure and Barring Service record retention and disclosure
Inadequate investigations and inquiries into deaths in custody
Failures to oversee by the IOPC
Decisions on investigation or prosecution
Cautions
Criminal Cases Review Commission
Compensation for miscarriages of justice

Time limits

It is important to be aware that there are often strict time limits by which a public law remedy must be sought. Time limits vary according to the different schemes and proceedings, but in general terms anyone seeking a public law remedy is advised to act expeditiously, especially in seeking legal advice.

Experience

Hickman & Rose are highly experienced in bringing public law challenges, particularly as they relate to the criminal justice system. Our expert lawyers provide specialist advice to individuals and organisations seeking a public law remedy, including the options available and any relevant time limits.

We have significant expertise in assisting individuals and organisations in making complaints, which focus on the relevant issues, provide key information and set out the particular issues that the public body needs to address. This can often result in the issue of concern being resolved. Even if it does not, then it may result in the claimant being a better strategic position for other legal challenge routes.

Our lawyers are highly experienced in acting for victims, including families of those who have died, in many areas of law, including in respect of submissions to the relevant prosecuting body as to why that body should change their decision not to prosecute.