Judicial Review during the Covid-19 Pandemic

IF 0.2 Q4 LAW
Joe Tomlinson, Jack Maxwell, Emma Marshall, Joanna Hynes
{"title":"Judicial Review during the Covid-19 Pandemic","authors":"Joe Tomlinson, Jack Maxwell, Emma Marshall, Joanna Hynes","doi":"10.3366/elr.2023.0847","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The public health crisis during the COVID-19 pandemic subjected judicial review to competing pressures. There was pressure for courts to be accommodating to governments both substantively and procedurally, for judicial review to be minimised and restricted and for powers to be broadly and generously construed. On the other hand, the unparalleled intrusions on individual freedoms and the need for hurried rule-making with little political scrutiny called for heightened vigilance and might have justified the courts developing a role acting in partnership with Governments in ensuring COVID-19 rules were lawful, reasonable and proportionate. The reported decisions in England, Wales and Scotland reveal the dominance of the first of these pressures and they paint a markedly deferential picture. Judicial rulings had negligible impact on COVID-19 restrictions. Courts did not act in partnership with the Government in shaping COVID-19 rules. The system of judicial review nonetheless had impact through what we described as its “second look” function: providing a mechanism for triggering public servants to look again at a decision and amended or change them to provide a sounder balance between public health imperatives and competing rights and interests.","PeriodicalId":43268,"journal":{"name":"Edinburgh Law Review","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Edinburgh Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3366/elr.2023.0847","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The public health crisis during the COVID-19 pandemic subjected judicial review to competing pressures. There was pressure for courts to be accommodating to governments both substantively and procedurally, for judicial review to be minimised and restricted and for powers to be broadly and generously construed. On the other hand, the unparalleled intrusions on individual freedoms and the need for hurried rule-making with little political scrutiny called for heightened vigilance and might have justified the courts developing a role acting in partnership with Governments in ensuring COVID-19 rules were lawful, reasonable and proportionate. The reported decisions in England, Wales and Scotland reveal the dominance of the first of these pressures and they paint a markedly deferential picture. Judicial rulings had negligible impact on COVID-19 restrictions. Courts did not act in partnership with the Government in shaping COVID-19 rules. The system of judicial review nonetheless had impact through what we described as its “second look” function: providing a mechanism for triggering public servants to look again at a decision and amended or change them to provide a sounder balance between public health imperatives and competing rights and interests.
Covid-19大流行期间的司法审查
COVID-19大流行期间的公共卫生危机使司法审查面临竞争压力。法院面临着在实质上和程序上迎合政府的压力,司法审查被最小化和限制,权力被广泛和慷慨地解释。另一方面,对个人自由的空前侵犯以及匆忙制定规则而缺乏政治审查的必要性要求提高警惕,这可能使法院有理由与各国政府合作,发挥作用,确保COVID-19规则合法、合理和相称。据报道,英格兰、威尔士和苏格兰的决定揭示了第一种压力的主导地位,它们描绘了一幅明显恭顺的画面。司法裁决对新冠肺炎限制的影响微不足道。法院在制定COVID-19规则方面没有与政府合作。尽管如此,司法审查制度通过我们所说的“重新审视”功能产生了影响:提供了一种机制,促使公务员重新审视一项决定,并对其进行修改或更改,以在公共卫生需要和相互竞争的权利和利益之间提供更合理的平衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
33.30%
发文量
72
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信