Pub Date : 2023-10-18DOI: 10.1080/10854681.2023.2267400
Cassandra Somers-Joce, Elizabeth A. O’Loughlin
{"title":"Recent Judicial Perspectives on the Duty of Candour","authors":"Cassandra Somers-Joce, Elizabeth A. O’Loughlin","doi":"10.1080/10854681.2023.2267400","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10854681.2023.2267400","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":232228,"journal":{"name":"Judicial Review","volume":"74 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135883107","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-12DOI: 10.1080/10854681.2023.2231320
James P. Barrett, Hannah Lau
{"title":"Trends in Public Law Climate Litigation: A Comparative Analysis of the UK and Australia","authors":"James P. Barrett, Hannah Lau","doi":"10.1080/10854681.2023.2231320","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10854681.2023.2231320","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":232228,"journal":{"name":"Judicial Review","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132306671","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-07DOI: 10.1080/10854681.2023.2223456
James E. Hurford
{"title":"Vox Populi or Vox Curiae? Some Possible Consequences of Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organisation on Abortion in the European Court of Human Rights","authors":"James E. Hurford","doi":"10.1080/10854681.2023.2223456","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10854681.2023.2223456","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":232228,"journal":{"name":"Judicial Review","volume":"70 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121454223","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-03DOI: 10.1080/10854681.2023.2272429
Edward Arash Abedian
{"title":"The Begum Question: The Scope of Deprivation of Citizenship Appeals in Cases of Fraud","authors":"Edward Arash Abedian","doi":"10.1080/10854681.2023.2272429","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10854681.2023.2272429","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":232228,"journal":{"name":"Judicial Review","volume":"107 1","pages":"164 - 177"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139364070","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-03DOI: 10.1080/10854681.2023.2218257
Gabriel Tan
{"title":"Using the Duty of Candour as a Judicial Review Caseworker","authors":"Gabriel Tan","doi":"10.1080/10854681.2023.2218257","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10854681.2023.2218257","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":232228,"journal":{"name":"Judicial Review","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126169110","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-03DOI: 10.1080/10854681.2023.2218255
J. Maurici
{"title":"Legal Analysis of the UK Government’s Closure of Schools in England in 2020 and 2021 – Part 2","authors":"J. Maurici","doi":"10.1080/10854681.2023.2218255","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10854681.2023.2218255","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":232228,"journal":{"name":"Judicial Review","volume":"97 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134444791","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-03DOI: 10.1080/10854681.2023.2218256
J. Tomlinson, J. Meers, Cassie Somers-Joce
1. The failure of public bodies to collect valuable data – what we call ‘data gaps’ – is a major problem of modern government. With government infrastructure becoming increasingly digitalised, the opportunities to collect data efficiently and at low cost are increasing exponentially. Yet, we often see public bodies making decisions which fail to capitalise on this opportunity. This may be for a range of reasons, and such failures can cause a range of serious problems. For public law practitioners, this is giving rise to an important question: are there routes to challenge decisions underpinning data gaps via judicial review?
{"title":"Judicial Review of Public Data Gaps","authors":"J. Tomlinson, J. Meers, Cassie Somers-Joce","doi":"10.1080/10854681.2023.2218256","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10854681.2023.2218256","url":null,"abstract":"1. The failure of public bodies to collect valuable data – what we call ‘data gaps’ – is a major problem of modern government. With government infrastructure becoming increasingly digitalised, the opportunities to collect data efficiently and at low cost are increasing exponentially. Yet, we often see public bodies making decisions which fail to capitalise on this opportunity. This may be for a range of reasons, and such failures can cause a range of serious problems. For public law practitioners, this is giving rise to an important question: are there routes to challenge decisions underpinning data gaps via judicial review?","PeriodicalId":232228,"journal":{"name":"Judicial Review","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131197230","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-03DOI: 10.1080/10854681.2023.2215641
Dominic de Cogan
1. Concern about the width of tax authority powers and their effects on taxpayers is hardly confined to the UK or to modern times. Indeed, the relationship between the public imperatives of taxation (including revenue-raising, regulation and redistribution) and the private interests of taxpayers has long been deeply contentious not only in practical tax administration but also in constitutional and philosophical debates about taxation. Nevertheless, there is something distinctively worrying about the recent UK practice in which new statutory powers are conferred on HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) in each annual Finance Bill, possibly as a way of demonstrating the government’s seriousness of purpose in tackling tax avoidance rather than because the powers are genuinely needed, and certainly without a consistent vision of what powers ought and ought not to be possessed by a tax authority. A number of investigations have been carried out by Parliamentary committees, research institutions and HMRC itself with a view to rationalising or at least reorganising HMRC’s powers, but these are typically overtaken by the conferral of even more powers. They have, in any case, not fully succeeded in fostering a culture of greater deliberation about how best to equip HMRC in carrying out its statutory functions of raising and managing taxes.
{"title":"Judicial Review in the Tax Field: Not a Spent Force","authors":"Dominic de Cogan","doi":"10.1080/10854681.2023.2215641","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10854681.2023.2215641","url":null,"abstract":"1. Concern about the width of tax authority powers and their effects on taxpayers is hardly confined to the UK or to modern times. Indeed, the relationship between the public imperatives of taxation (including revenue-raising, regulation and redistribution) and the private interests of taxpayers has long been deeply contentious not only in practical tax administration but also in constitutional and philosophical debates about taxation. Nevertheless, there is something distinctively worrying about the recent UK practice in which new statutory powers are conferred on HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) in each annual Finance Bill, possibly as a way of demonstrating the government’s seriousness of purpose in tackling tax avoidance rather than because the powers are genuinely needed, and certainly without a consistent vision of what powers ought and ought not to be possessed by a tax authority. A number of investigations have been carried out by Parliamentary committees, research institutions and HMRC itself with a view to rationalising or at least reorganising HMRC’s powers, but these are typically overtaken by the conferral of even more powers. They have, in any case, not fully succeeded in fostering a culture of greater deliberation about how best to equip HMRC in carrying out its statutory functions of raising and managing taxes.","PeriodicalId":232228,"journal":{"name":"Judicial Review","volume":"20 S1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"113978815","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-03DOI: 10.1080/10854681.2023.2200655
O. Jackson, Isabella Buono
1. After a two-year hiatus, the hit series ‘Public Law in the Supreme Court’ returns to Judicial Review. Its former authors, Christopher Knight and Tom Cross, have kindly passed the baton to us. We intend to adopt their tried-and-tested format by selecting our own idiosyncratic ‘ten most interesting public law judgments handed down by the Supreme Court in a legal year’ and summarising them for this journal.
1. 中断两年之后，热门剧集《最高法院的公法》(Public Law in Supreme Court)回归《司法审查》(Judicial Review)。它的前作者，克里斯托弗·奈特和汤姆·克罗斯，好心地把接力棒传给了我们。我们打算采用他们久经考验的形式，选择我们自己独特的“最高法院在一个法律年度里做出的十大最有趣的公法判决”，并为本杂志总结。
{"title":"Public Law in the Supreme Court 2020–2021","authors":"O. Jackson, Isabella Buono","doi":"10.1080/10854681.2023.2200655","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10854681.2023.2200655","url":null,"abstract":"1. After a two-year hiatus, the hit series ‘Public Law in the Supreme Court’ returns to Judicial Review. Its former authors, Christopher Knight and Tom Cross, have kindly passed the baton to us. We intend to adopt their tried-and-tested format by selecting our own idiosyncratic ‘ten most interesting public law judgments handed down by the Supreme Court in a legal year’ and summarising them for this journal.","PeriodicalId":232228,"journal":{"name":"Judicial Review","volume":"121 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124619128","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-03DOI: 10.1080/10854681.2023.2200658
Karl Laird
1. In November 2022 Sir Duncan Ouseley’s long-awaited report on the operation of closed material procedures (CMPs) under the Justice and Security Act 2013 (‘the JSA’) was published. Sir Duncan’s report examined various aspects of how the CMP regime operates in practice and made a number of recommendations which are intended to improve it. The report did not, however, consider whether CMPs should be used to protect not only the interests of national security, but also a wider range of sensitive interests, such as international relations. This article will consider whether there is a case to be made for expanding the definition of ‘sensitive material’ in s 6(11) of the JSA – which restricts CMPs only to material the disclosure of which would be damaging to the interests of national security – to include a broader range of sensitive interests.
{"title":"Closed Material Procedures – Should They Be Expanded to Protect Sensitive Interests Other Than National Security?","authors":"Karl Laird","doi":"10.1080/10854681.2023.2200658","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10854681.2023.2200658","url":null,"abstract":"1. In November 2022 Sir Duncan Ouseley’s long-awaited report on the operation of closed material procedures (CMPs) under the Justice and Security Act 2013 (‘the JSA’) was published. Sir Duncan’s report examined various aspects of how the CMP regime operates in practice and made a number of recommendations which are intended to improve it. The report did not, however, consider whether CMPs should be used to protect not only the interests of national security, but also a wider range of sensitive interests, such as international relations. This article will consider whether there is a case to be made for expanding the definition of ‘sensitive material’ in s 6(11) of the JSA – which restricts CMPs only to material the disclosure of which would be damaging to the interests of national security – to include a broader range of sensitive interests.","PeriodicalId":232228,"journal":{"name":"Judicial Review","volume":"51 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123143236","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：