Suchergebnisse

The article examines recent judicialization of politics in the United Kingdom from two perspectives, namely: judicialization induced by the courts and judicialization induced by politicians and administrators. Using these two perspectives the article shows that judicialization takes many forms, occurs for many reasons, and is present at many levels of the United Kingdom system. Judicialization is likely to grow in importance as the influence of Europe grows.

1. Entick v Carrington [1765]: Revisited All the King's Horses -- Richard Gordon -- 2. Ridge v Baldwin [1964]: 'Nuff Said' -- SH Bailey -- 3. Padfield v Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food [1968]: Judges and Parliamentary Democracy -- Maurice Sunkin -- 4. Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1968]: In Perspective -- David Feldman -- 5. Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1984]: Reviewing the Prerogative -- Richard Drabble -- 6. The Factortame Litigation: Sovereignty in Question -- John MCEldowney -- 7. M v The Home Office [1992]: Ministers and Injunctions -- Christopher Forsyth -- 8. A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005]: The Belmarsh Case -- Richard Clayton -- 9. R v North and East Devon Health Authority [2001]: Coughlan and the Development of Public Law -- Kirsty Hughes -- 10. R (Jackson) v Attorney-General [2005]: Reviewing Legislation -- Elizabeth Wicks -- 11. Bancoult and the Royal Prerogative in Colonial Constitutional Law -- Satvinder S Juss -- 12. AXA General Insurance Ltd v HM Advocate and Others [2012]: The Nature of Devolved Legislation and the Role of the Courts -- The Honourable Mr Justice Lewis -- 13. Evans v Attorney General [2015]: The Underlying Normativity of Constitutional Disagreement -- Thomas Fairclough -- Epilogue: Miller, the Legislature and the Executive -- Paul Craig

Judicial review is of growing importance to public administration in the United Kingdom but its role in relation to government remains highly contentious. There is much debate over the extent to which it is a threat that imposes costs and impairs service delivery or a positive resource that helps secure improvements in service quality. In this article, we consider the findings of the first comprehensive quantitative study of the relationships between levels of judicial review litigation and the quality of local government services. The findings indicate that judicial review may be making a positive contribution to local government in England and Wales. The article also considers the way local government officials perceive judicial review and argues that reactions to judicial review cannot be wholly understood in terms of incentives. Judicial review makes a positive contribution to public administration and does so at least partly because it promotes values that are central to the ethos of public administration and assists officials in resolving tensions between individual and collective justice that lie at the core of their responsibilities. Adapted from the source document.

In this paper we consider the relationship between levels of judicial review litigation and the quality of local government services. The findings indicate that judicial review may be making a positive contribution to local government in England and Wales. The paper also considers the way local government officials perceive judicial review and argues that reactions cannot be wholly understood in terms of incentives. Judicial review makes a positive contribution to public administration at least partly because it promotes values that are central to the ethos of public administration and assists officials in resolving tensions between individual and collective justice.