Tag Archives: justice

Milton Firman – Threatened Changes To Judicial Review

The threatened changes to Judicial Review are a genuine risk to individual flexibility. The cure of Judicial Review in the high Court is planned as a method for individual nationals keeping a look out for the exercises of those open bodies completing an open capacity. It is a brilliantly viable cure, given there right circumstances. It represents and controls activities which are either unreasonable, completely irrational, ultra vires or unlawful.

The proposed changes incorporate an increment in Court expenses and chopping down as far as possible for getting such a case the primary spot. Indeed, even the scholarly Lord Chief Justice has tossed his wig in the ring and communicated worries that the recommendations may have the opposite impact to that which is proposed. By chopping down as far as possible from the current three months, more Applications, instead of less, may be brought in light of the fact that there will just not be sufficient time to intercede and trade off. How senseless is that! By and by, in the setting of legal audit, three months is not quite a while and what the accentuation ought to be on is somewhat the time it takes for a Judicial Review Application to precede the Court. Some all the more conceivably false economy.


The Legal Comapny all believe justice is an automatic right, and so perhaps it should be. The truth is very different. My own view is that rarely does justice come knocking on our door. The problem is when injustice knocks, what should we do.

I deal with a multitude of claims against the police. The fact is that in many situations, there is in truth no remedy. Let me give you an example or two.

A chap is arrested for something he has not done but it is serious. He is accused of murder of a friend and he was definitely in the same house at the time the murder was committed. He is taken into the police station and, though he denies the allegation, he is charged. He pleads not guilty and 12 months later, he stands trial, having been in custody at the prison nearby for the full twelve months. It was a nasty murder and he was therefore potentially a dangerous man.

At trial, the jury, after a three week hearing, acquits him and he walks free. Hoorah!

The fact is that by this time his life has been destroyed, his self-esteem is in a total tangle and he is suffering from depression. He is understandably and justifiably livid. I certainly would be.

The fact is that the onus would be on him to prove either that there was malice on the part of the prosecution in  bringing and pursuing a prosecution against him, or that perhaps he was falsely arrested and imprisoned. But that would depend upon whether the police could establish that they genuinely believed that there was a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offense. The threshold is very low, and as I say regularly to my clients, the police cannot be judge and jury.

So the fact remains that where we think there must be a legal remedy and a right to compensation, this is not necessarily the case, and often isn’t.

This is further clarified by recent cases confirming the rule that in general terms the police has a very limited duty in negligence. They fail to investigate, do we have a claim for example? Very unlikely is the answer.

The outcome is that we must tread carefully before embarking upon these exercises which be costly both in money and in time.