‘The dominant narrative in the discussion over judicial review—and especially in relation to judicial overreach—focuses on major cases, and what can be gleaned from these in terms of doctrine, constitutional principle, and the balance of powers within the UK constitution. But this seems to be changing. There’s an emerging empirical trend (chp 7) in judicial review research that pushes back against this focus, and seeks to understand and portray JR in a wider context than is often presented in more traditional legal scholarship. The mindset of the empirical movement is reflected in a line from a recent Public Law article by Paul Craig, who quips: “I do not mind how many times Evans is cited, it still only counts as one case” (Jan 2022, p 24). That may be true, but there remain significant problems with this mentality when assessing judicial overreach, and though the research is relevant and important, there are reasons to be sceptical about these empirical defences of judicial review.’
Full Story
UK Constitutional Law Association, 7th July 2022
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
