UK Public Law: Analyzing the Judicial Review Process of a Hypothetical Case - Term Paper

Introduction

The term paper will get divided into two parts based on the provided queries. The study will focus on evaluating and analyzing UK public law. The first section will discuss the judicial review process on a hypothetical case scenario whereby the Home Secretary enforces a change in the Prison and Offenders Management Act under section 12 of the constitution, which can affect the operations of prison facilities within the United Kingdom (UK). The public agency decided to make alterations in the law in a move to curb the number of prison riots across the nation. But there is a high risk that the new act can increase the risk of insecurity, disorder, scrutiny, and privacy invasion within the prisons. The paper will elaborate on the judicial review process that will get initiated by the prison board led by Mr. Barrowclough and inmates represented by Norman Gober. The study will guide the applicants on the critical concepts of judicial review, grounds of evaluation, and the possible remedies. The second part of the paper will elaborate on the issue of natural justice during court rulings while focusing on the hypothetical case study. It illustrates that the study will incorporate the legal review concept when expressing various ideas. The section will provide comprehensive information on the different natural justice rules while paying close attention to the bias regulation. In the end, the part will indicate the most effective strategy in eradicating the concept of preference during court rulings also maximizing fairness and transparency in the judicial system.

Judicial Review

Judicial review is a court practice of evaluating a public organization's decision. The action's goal is to ensure that the government does not exercise its power unlawfully, hence navigating towards maintaining equity and inclusion in the community. A judge must analyze the execution and decide whether it is necessary. In writing known as the 'International journal of entrepreneurship and development studies,' Hossaini and Nisu (2018) specified that the UK's judicial review system continues to develop and incorporate the aspect of democracy over the years.

Grounds for Review

In the journal known as 'Evidence, facts, and the changing nature of judicial review,' Varuhas (2020) indicated that there are various grounds for judicial review, including when the decision shows any form of illegality, inequality during the partaking of the regulation changes, and irrationality. The foundation of the legal claim under discussion is the concept of procedural unfairness, which led to the establishment of a wrong choice. It was a violation of the act since it requires the Home Secretary to consider the insights of Mr. Barrowclough when making vital decisions in the sector. The Home Secretary office ignored the advice of the Head of Governors in prison institutions in the UK. Mr. Barrowclough stated that the enforcement of stricter regulations was unnecessary, and it has the possibility of causing harsh consequences for the entire jail community. The prison official mentioned that the riots' presence was unrelated since they were due to diverse factors; hence, there was no need for adverse changes in the regulations that govern the prisoners within the UK. Despite the guidance from the chairperson, the public office enacted the transitions in the regulation act, which is a practice of unfairness. The public authority should have requested the prison's board enforce slight changes in the execution of daily routines to fulfill the inmates' demands to ensure the eradication of prison riots in the future.

Matters of Procedure

In the judicial review case of the amendment of the Prison and Offenders Management Act, Mr. Barrowclough and Norman Gober will act as the claimants. At the same time, the Home Secretary will be the defendant during the judicial review. There is a condition that states that the applicants of a judicial review should be direct victims of the regulation; also, they should not have selfish motives. Norman Gober is a prisoner; hence he gets affected directly with the change in law regulation. It will hinder his pending appeal in the court since he won't be able to communicate freely with his lawyer due to the enforced rule, which permits prison officials to access the inmates' emails and phone calls. It the duty of Mr. Barrowclough as chairperson of the board of prison governors to manage and control the activities of the inmates and the officials in the institutions. The transitions in law will spark violence among the prisoners when protesting against the new regulations contrary to their fundamental rights.

In writing known as the 'International journal of entrepreneurship and development studies,' Hossaini and Nisu (2018) illustrated that before commencing the judicial review process, a claimant should exhaust other options, such as negotiating with the defendant. First, the chairperson and inmate should write a letter known as the before claim requesting the public authority to consider their grievance before seeking official strategies that will have consequences. The document should include the possible adverse outcomes of the new set of regulations, comprehensive data on the issue, the deadline for the defendant's response, also inform the other party on matters such as the protective costs order. After the arrival of the perpetrator's reply, the claimants should check whether the agency agreed to their demands. In case the letter before the claim was unsuccessful, the party should go-ahead to take the matter to court.

The chairman and prisoner should apply for judicial review six weeks after the 3rd of March 2020, which is just three months after learning about the introduced new set of laws. The judicial review will involve two steps. During the first interval, the court will decide whether the case is questionable; thus, the judge has the responsibility of validating and approving. The claimants should provide a form known as N461 to the administrative court with the facts to support their view on the new regulations. The public authority has the duty of responding to the claim report with a statement, which summarizes the arguments of the defense. The second phase will entail the introduction of evidence and different perspectives on the law matter; then the judge makes the final decision after listening to both parties. The claimants need to provide extensive evidence to support the case during the oral hearing. The official judgment can take place after the arguments get aired or after a particular duration of time. The complaints can seek for petition when they are unsatisfied with the decision by sending an appeal court application.

There is a need for the court to consider the expenses that will incur during the judicial review process. In the article known as the 'Judicial review in Bangladesh and UK: a comparative study,' Hossaini and Nisu (2018) showed that court cases tend to be expensive. It is because the parties are required by the UK court of law to pay a considerable sum of 25,000 euros or above depending on the total number of trial days. The participants should have in mind the possibility of getting requested to cater for the defendant's expenses when they lose the case. According to the UK court of law regulations, the winning side should get paid for the costs incurred during the proceedings. The claimants should acquire the protective costs order (PCO), which defends the losers of a case from paying the fees of the winner's side. According to the Criminal Justice and Courts Act, the UK court's requirement to grant the order is that the applicant should indicate that the removal of the regulation will mainly benefit the prisoners' welfare in the request form. The idea of hiring a lawyer during the judicial review process is costly; hence the parties can rely on pro bono advice to acquire a representative from a well-established firm. The concept is affordable and more resourceful than obtaining a private lawyer. In case the claim becomes unsuccessful after the trial, the party will still have to cater for the defendant's expenses. After the judge makes the official decision, the party needs to pay for the transcript, which entails the judicial review proceedings and made decisions.

Remedies

In the article known as the 'Judicial review in Bangladesh and UK: a comparative study,' Hossaini and Nisu (2018) showed that if the claimant's side wins the argument, the new regulation will get termed as unlawful. There are various remedies to deal with the act after the official judgment favors the claim. In the current situation, the most suitable solution that the court should inflict is removing the implemented series of regulations. The judge can rule that the public authority should reintroduce the previous rules under the section since they promote equity and humanity among the prisoners within the UK. A judicial examination is a discretionary form of a solution, which illustrates that it is not a must for the court to approve the remedy that the claimants identify after winning the case. The law court puts into account a diverse range of concepts when deciding on the issue of solution. Applicants need to have enough information to support the mentioned remedy.

Natural Justice

Aristotle was the first theorist to raise queries on the aspect of moral values; thus, he got to develop further the idea of natural justice. Natural law is a form of regulation that views decree and ethics correlate within the judicial system. The purpose of the rule is to ensure that people believe and perceive the legal authority as fair. The concept of natural justice is that a human being with proper intentions should not receive any form of harassment; also, people should treat each other with love and care. Experts indicate that human laws should get retrieved from people's moral standards and not rely entirely on a government agency. It is vital to note that natural regulation gets applied in courts during both common and civil law contexts. In the journal named 'Exclusion of the rules of natural justice,' Groves (2012) mentioned that currently, it is difficult to exclude the aspect of natural justice during court proceedings. The judicial review should employ natural justice since it illustrates that acts that reflect unfairness should get recognized as an irregularity, which will aid in the eradication of the changes made in the Prison and Offenders Management Act. In English law, Norman Gober has an opportunity to receive fair ruling since the court's judgment should not violate the individual's human rights. Norman's privilege is to obtain a ruling that does not disrupt his right to privacy and the need for fairness during his appeal proceedings and the court's final decision. The guideline is under the act known as the European Convention on Human Rights.

Basic Rules

There are three forms of standard law regulations as per natural justice. During the judicial review proceedings, there should be the implementation of the hearing, bias, and evidence guidelines.