Question 1

What is judicial review?

Accepted Answer

**Judicial review** is a court process examining whether a decision by a public body was made **lawfully**. It is one of the main mechanisms by which government and public authorities are held to account in the UK.

**The critical distinction: it reviews the process, not the merits.** A court conducting judicial review is not asking whether the decision was correct, wise or fair in outcome. It asks whether the decision-maker acted within their legal powers and followed a lawful process. A decision can be foolish and lawful, and the court will not interfere.

This is frequently misunderstood in reporting, where a successful judicial review is described as a court disagreeing with a policy. The court is almost always saying the decision was reached improperly, and the body remains free to make the **same decision again** having followed a proper process.

**The main grounds:**

**Illegality** — acting beyond legal powers (*ultra vires*), misdirecting oneself in law, or using a power for an improper purpose.

**Irrationality** — the *Wednesbury* standard, meaning a decision so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have reached it. A deliberately very high bar.

**Procedural impropriety** — failing to follow a required procedure, failing to consult where required, breaching natural justice, bias, or failing to give reasons where obliged to.

**Legitimate expectation** — departing from a clear promise or established practice without justification.

**Human rights** grounds under the Human Rights Act.

**Practical points:** claims must be brought **promptly and generally within three months**; the claimant must have **standing** — a sufficient interest; permission is required before a full hearing; and it is a **remedy of last resort**, so other routes such as an internal appeal or ombudsman must usually be exhausted first.

**Remedies** include quashing the decision, prohibiting an action, or a declaration — rarely damages.

This describes England and Wales.

Question 2

What is a public inquiry and how is it different from a court case?

Accepted Answer

A public inquiry investigates a matter of serious public concern to establish what happened and why, and to make recommendations preventing recurrence. It is fundamentally different from litigation,

Question 3

How does appealing a benefits decision actually work?

Accepted Answer

Through a two-stage process — an internal review first, then an independent tribunal — and the striking fact is that a large proportion of appeals that reach a tribunal succeed, which tells you

Question 4

What is the difference between a magistrates' court and a Crown Court?

Accepted Answer

They handle different levels of criminal offence, with different personnel, procedures and sentencing powers. Magistrates' court. All criminal cases in England and Wales start here, and the large

Question 5

Who decides whether to prosecute someone?

Accepted Answer

In England and Wales, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decides in most cases — not the police, and not the victim. That separation is deliberate and is the point of the arrangement. Why the CPS

Question 6

What is contempt of court, and why can't the press report some trials?

Accepted Answer

Contempt of court covers conduct that interferes with the administration of justice — and reporting restrictions exist because a jury must decide on the evidence it hears in court, not on what it

Question 7

How are judges actually appointed?

Accepted Answer

Through processes deliberately designed to insulate the judiciary from political control — and the differences between countries here are among the most consequential in constitutional design. The

Related Questions