I know, strange whats in some posters heads, to try and make a link that doesn't exist
Starmer abandons plans to cancel local elections.
- Thread starter fillyboy
- Start date
He/they wanted a judicial review...
Judicial reviews are part of the Human Rights Act in order that public bodies can be challenged...
The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK domestic law.
They want to dump the very act that guaranteed they could take this to court...
That's the link you are looking for
He/they wanted a judicial review...
Judicial reviews are part of the Human Rights Act in order that public bodies can be challenged...
The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK domestic law.
They want to dump the very act that guaranteed they could take this to court...
That's the link you are looking for
You can have judicial reviews which are nothing to do with human rights.
The most usual ground for judicial review is based on ministers acting outside of the authority delegated to them by Parliament; known as acting ultra vires. Also, there is Wednesbury unreasonableness, which means a decision is so irrational that no reasonable minister could have made it.
- Joined
- 18 Apr 2022
- Messages
- 5,683
- Reaction score
- 768
- Country
You seem to be missing the point.
It's not that the judicial review concerned itself over any alleged human rights law violations - as you say it was a simple ultra-vires complaint.
But it is the fact that Reform were able to get a judicial review to look at it is because the right to do that, the right to have courts scrutinise government actions to see if they are lawful, is a right created by the HRA, which gave UK legal force to rights in the ECHR.
Dumping the Act wouldn't mean that people wouldn't any longer be able to get judicial reviews of human rights related government actions, it would mean that people wouldn't any longer be able to get judicial reviews of any government actions
That is not correct. You are muddling up various legal principles. However, I will not be too critical, because this is a pretty complex area of law.
The right to judicial review has existed for centuries under the common law. But it only really started to become common in the 1960s. Traditionally, it was based on the principle of ultra vires. Most legislation these days is delegated (secondary) legislation. There will be an Act of Parliament (primary legislation) which gives the relevant minister the authority to make additional rules by secondary legislation. These additional rules are known as statutory instruments and will often be called Regulations. If, when the minister makes the Regulations, they exceed the authority given to them by the Act of Parliament, then they are acting ultra vires and their decision can be challenged by judicial review. Similarly, if the minister reaches decisions that do not follow the procedure laid down in the Act of Parliament, then they will also be acting ultra vires.
However, until relatively recently, the Act of Parliament itself could not be challenged directly. This is because of what is known as the Supremacy of Parliament.
That is where the Human Rights Act comes in. For the first time in the UK, it gave people the ability to challenge an actual Act of Parliament in court if it did not comply with the ECHR.
Judicial review has existed since medieval times.
Just to add:
There are four main grounds for judicial reviews which aren't on the basis of human rights.
The two I mentioned above, which are statutory ultra vires and procedural ultra vires.
In addition, judicial review can be brought on the grounds of natural justice or irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness).
Google thread title.
Copy a load of waffle.
Paste it into the thread.
Nothing achieved.
Copy a load of waffle.
Paste it into the thread.
Nothing achieved.
OMG!!
You seem an intelligent chap. I am sure you can understand what I wrote. It was all my own work. I did have to put my thinking cap on, but I didn't even need to drag out any of my textbooks.
The point is that a couple of posters were claiming that Reform's legal challenge was based on human rights, because they were claiming that judicial review has only been available since the Human Rights Act. I was trying to explain, in a simple way, why that is not correct, and give some of basic underpinnings to the law around non human rights judicial review. Based on the available information, Reform's legal challenge was nothing to do with human rights.
Anyone with half a brain knows it wasn't related to the Human Wrongs Act. Just the usuals spouting bitter rubbish as normal.
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2023
- Messages
- 16,310
- Reaction score
- 9,953
- Country
Oh thank god for that. Please keep your replys to the minimum. We don't need a huge lecture on human rights, we don't even need human rights.
Bingo...
The postponing of elections was an act of parliament/government and were it not for the HRA it couldn't be challenged...
Maybe garbage is counting his chickens on being elected, and doesn't want to be challenged should that happen by removing the HRA
I bet you (and the RWR) knew.
Bingo...
The postponing of elections was an act of parliament/government and were it not for the HRA it couldn't be challenged...
Maybe garbage is counting his chickens on being elected, and doesn't want to be challenged should that happen by removing the HRA
No, it wasn't an Act of Parliament.
It was a statutory instrument. Which means it was secondary/delegated legislation. Basically, if you read my posts above, you will see how a minister can be judicially reviewed when they pass secondary legislation.
It was called the:
The Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) Order 2025
The Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) Order 2025
This Order changes the year of ordinary election of councillors for those English councils specified in article 2 from 2025 to 2026. The years in which subsequent ordinary elections of councillors for those councils take place are not changed by this Order, except for Thurrock Council for which...
"Effectively", "the peoples representatives", you sound like a member of the politbureau.
