Turner, Ian David (2010) Judicial Review, Irrationality, and the Limits of Intervention by the Courts. Kings Law Journal, 21 (2). pp. 311-331. ISSN 0961-5768
Full text not available from this repository.
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5235/096157610792240687
When exercising judicial review, the courts, on occasions, have intervened in circumstances where administrative decisions were not irrational. However, these low standards of judicial intervention are arguably constitutional, especially since the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). To this end, this article seeks to establish a zone of executive decision-making, for reasons of democracy, where the courts are clearly excluded. But it is unable to do so. Does this mean, therefore, that judicial intervention on the grounds of irrationality exists without limit? Assuming this to be the case, it is suggested that the courts should show greater respect to the administrative branch of the state where it has genuinely sought to engage with the legal process in arriving at its decisions.
|Uncontrolled Keywords (separate with ;):||IRRATIONALITY; PROPORTIONALITY; HARD LOOK; ANXIOUS SCRUTINY; SUBSTITUTION OF JUDGMENT|
|Subjects:||K Law > K Law (General)|
|Schools:||College of Business, Law & Applied Social Studies > Lancashire Law School|
|Deposited By:||Richard D Taylor|
|Deposited On:||02 Apr 2012 10:23|
|Last Modified:||11 Jun 2013 12:48|
Downloads per month over past year
Downloads for past 30 days
Repository Staff Only: item control page