Judicial review — Civics, 11–13
Judicial review lets courts check whether public decisions follow higher laws and fair procedures.
What judicial review does
Judicial review is a court’s check on whether a public authority used its power lawfully. The court usually does not decide which policy it likes best. It asks whether the authority had the right power, followed the required process and respected higher laws or protected rights.
Why courts check decisions
Public authorities can make mistakes, exceed their powers or treat people unfairly, even when they claim to serve the public. Judicial review gives a person a route to challenge that use of power. It grew from the need to stop government from being the only judge of whether government acted lawfully.
A planning decision
A council refuses permission for a small community library but gives no reasons, although its rules require written reasons. The group asks a court to review the decision. The court checks the rule, the council’s process and the evidence. If the process was unlawful, it can cancel the decision and require the council to decide again; it does not automatically grant the library permission.
The appeal trap
A reasonable mistake is thinking judicial review is simply an appeal where a judge replaces an official’s opinion with a better one. Courts usually respect choices that the authority was allowed to make. Their special question is whether the power was used legally, rationally and fairly, not whether the judge would have chosen the same policy.
Where it appears
This idea appears when someone challenges a planning refusal, a benefit decision, a school exclusion or another act by a public authority. Before a court is involved, people often use an internal complaint or appeal. The civic lesson is simple: public power must have boundaries, reasons and a way to be checked.
Keep exploring
Other languages
Loading MyLeoNes™…