Self-help guide
What is judicial review?
Judicial review is a legal process by which the courts assess whether a public body has reached or failed to reach a decision fairly. The grounds for a decision being deemed ‘unfair’ can include the following:
- there has been an unfair or biased process, such as failure to review evidence presented by one side or to give a fair hearing on the basis of the written information, or
- the decision is irrational.
The most important point about judicial review is that it must be sought very quickly after the decision has been made. You should seek legal advice as quickly as possible if you are considering this route. An application for judicial review should be made as soon as possible, and, in any event no later than three months after the public body’s decision has been made.
Who or what is a public body?
A ‘public body’ is a formally established organisation that is at least in part publicly funded to deliver a public or government service, though not as a ministerial department. A coroner is a public office holder, and as such their decision may be subject to judicial review proceedings.
There is no appeal process to enable a coroner’s decision to be challenged — the only option is to proceed to judicial review proceedings. For example, if a coroner decides not to hold an inquest, this decision may be challenged by way of judicial review, providing it can be shown there is a case for arguing that the coroner’s decision was unfair, and/or biased, and/or irrational.
The NHS is a public body, so their decisions may also be subject to judicial review proceedings. However, in the case of the NHS complaints process, the first step is to refer the matter to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO). The Ombudsman is a government-appointed official and their decision is subject to judicial review proceedings.
Time limits in bringing judicial review proceedings
You should endeavour to issue judicial review proceedings as soon as possible after the grounds for the claim first arose (after the date of the original decision which you wish to have reviewed). In any event, proceedings must be issued within three months of the date on which the grounds first arose. This does not mean you have three months to seek advice. You will need to move quickly if you intend to bring judicial review proceedings.
Judicial Review Pre-Action Protocol
A pre-action protocol is a process which sets out the conduct and the steps the court will normally expect parties to take before commencing proceedings for certain types of civil claims.
Applicants for judicial review are expected and encouraged to follow the Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review, except in urgent cases. A failure to follow the protocol may result in sanctions being imposed by the court. The protocol encourages an applicant to serve a letter before action containing essential detailed information about the basis for the judicial review application.
Judicial review costs
Judicial review can be complex and expensive. You may be eligible for legal aid, but this can be difficult to obtain.
Avma’s advice
You should seek representation from a solicitor specialising in this type of work. If you would like further legal advice relating to judicial review, we strongly advise you to contact lawyers who specialise in public law. Avma do not accredit solicitors in this specialist area of the law, so we advise you to use the Law Society’s ‘Find a Solicitor’ tool to find such specialists.
If you need further help, advice or information, please contact Avma by submitting a written case on our portal. We may be able to offer you some general support with the judicial review process.