MEMORY.COM
4.37.48

Guest

Dark mode

User ID: 999999
Version: 4.37.48

www.memory.com

You are in browse mode. You must login to use MEMORY

Confused? » Read about learn, practice and the various modes

» To start learning, click login

1 / 7

[Front]

Judges were appointed by the king, still the case, so the supervisory jurisdiction is the crowns authority, abstract concept that the crown supervising citizens and government

[Back]

What is the historical background of judicial review?

Practice Known Questions

Stay up to date with your due questions

Complete 5 questions to enable practice

Exams

Exam: Test your skills

Course needs 15 questions

Learn New Questions

Dynamic Modes

SmartIntelligent mix of all modes

CustomUse settings to weight dynamic modes

Manual Mode [BETA]

The course owner has not enabled manual mode

Specific modes

Learn with flashcards

multiple choiceMultiple choice mode

SpeakingAnswer with voice

TypingTyping only mode

Crim - Leaderboard

1 user has completed this course

No users have played this course yet, be the first

Crim - Details

Levels:

1) Chapter 1 View

Questions:

7 questions

🇬🇧		🇬🇧

Judges were appointed by the king, still the case, so the supervisory jurisdiction is the crowns authority, abstract concept that the crown supervising citizens and government

What is the historical background of judicial review?

The function of to challenge decisions of public and government bodies with public functions, can be challenged on a matter of legality or procedural

What in broad terms is the function of judicial review?

Courts are doing different thing, part of the distinction lies on the fork line of a merits process distinction. So for an appeal, it is a creature of statute, whereas judicial review it’s a creature of the common law an appeal revisits the merits of the case, unlikely to hear evidence but will revist the case law, the arguments etc. Judicial review is looking more at the process, its supposed to be different.

What is the Distinction between appeal and judicial review.

Merits: looking at the case law, arguments etc Process: looks at the process of lawfulness and procedure. Does proportionality stray too much to merits?

2. Distinction between merits and process

This means a claimant requires permission of the court to proceed.

Discretionary nature of the application (the ‘claim’)

- up to the courts whether you meet the requirements - one requirement: it is a public law matter - exhaust your remedies, e.g you might want to go through a statutory appeal first, - strict time limits e.g. 3 months, fairly short, this is different to private law where it can be 3yrs to 6 yrs. This difference is because government actions have wide ranging effect, economic implication etc. Whereas in private court you are allowed to dwell on whether - has to be justiciable -requirement of standing: requirement that there has to be a connection to the matter

What are some examples of requirements for judicial review?

1. A mandatory order 2. A prohibiting order and 3. A quashing orders (previously certiorari).

What are the remedies for judicial review?