‘Access to justice in public law contexts is mediated by several procedural rules, including standing and permission requirements, which reflect a concern to confine judicial review to cases that properly warrant the governmental costs of public law litigation. However, in addition to these universal checkpoints, which are a well-known feature of the judicial review terrain, Parliament has historically entrusted to the Attorney General a distinct gatekeeping role in relation to a subset of public law proceedings which require that law officer’s consent, or “fiat”, before they may be brought. Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 is a clear example. It provides that an application to the High Court to quash an inquest finding and order a fresh investigation may be made only by, or with the authority of, the Attorney General, thereby assigning to the law officer a “public interest” function at the threshold of a judicial process. This blog explores whether it would be appropriate for a public interest function of this nature to be examined by way of an application for judicial review under any circumstances, given that the UK Supreme Court has indicated it will hear competing arguments about this in the near future.’
Full Story
UK Constitutional Law Association, 25th February 2026
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org