📚 The Judicial Review Process | 司法审查程序
In the United Kingdom, judicial review is a key legal mechanism through which the courts examine the lawfulness of decisions and actions taken by public bodies, including government ministers, local authorities, and other bodies exercising public functions. Unlike an appeal, judicial review is not concerned with whether a decision was correct on the merits, but with whether it was made lawfully, fairly, and rationally. For Edexcel A-Level Politics and Law students, understanding this process is essential to evaluating the relationship between the judiciary, the executive, and Parliament.
在英国，司法审查是法院审查公共机构（包括政府大臣、地方政府及其他行使公共职能的机构）决定和行动合法性的关键法律机制。与上诉不同，司法审查关注的不是决定在实体上是否正确，而是其作出过程是否合法、公平、合理。对于 Edexcel A-Level 政治与法律学生来说，理解这一程序对于评估司法机构、行政机关和议会之间的关系至关重要。
1. Definition and Purpose of Judicial Review | 司法审查的定义与目的
Judicial review is a procedure in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action taken by a public authority. Its main purpose is not to substitute the court’s own decision for that of the original decision-maker, but to ensure that public bodies do not exceed their legal powers, ignore their duties, or act unfairly. This upholds the rule of law, a fundamental principle of the UK constitution.
司法审查是法官审查公共机构所作决定或行为合法性的一种程序。其主要目的不是以法院自己的决定取代原决定者的决定，而是确保公共机构不超越其法定权力、不忽视其职责、不采取不公平行为。这维护了英国宪法的基本原则——法治。
Judicial review allows individuals, businesses, and interest groups to challenge decisions that affect them. For example, a local resident may challenge a council’s planning decision, or a charity may challenge a government policy that is alleged to be unlawful. The process therefore provides an important check on executive power.
司法审查允许个人、企业和利益集团对影响他们的决定提出挑战。例如，当地居民可以质疑市政委员会的规划决定，慈善机构可以质疑据称非法的政府政策。因此，这一程序对行政权力构成了重要制约。
2. The Constitutional Basis of Judicial Review | 司法审查的宪法基础
In the UK’s uncodified constitution, judicial review is rooted in the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law. Parliament is the supreme law-maker, and public bodies derive their powers from Acts of Parliament. When a public body acts beyond those statutory powers, the courts are entitled to intervene. This is often described by the Latin term ‘ultra vires’, meaning ‘beyond the powers’.
在英国不成文宪法中，司法审查植根于议会主权原则和法治原则。议会是最高立法机关，公共机构的权力来源于议会通过的法律。当公共机构超出这些法定权力行事时，法院有权介入。这通常用拉丁语 ‘ultra vires’ 来描述，意为 ‘越权’。
The common law has also developed judicial review through landmark cases. For instance, the case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation (1948) established the test of unreasonableness, while Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985) clarified the scope of review, including prerogative powers. These cases demonstrate that judicial review is a judge-made area of law operating within the constitutional framework.
普通法也通过里程碑式判例发展了司法审查。例如，’联合省电影院诉温斯伯里公司案’（1948年）确立了不合理性的检验标准，而 ‘公务员联合会诉文官大臣案’（1985年）澄清了审查范围，包括特权权力。这些案例表明，司法审查是法官在宪法框架内创立的法律领域。
3. Key Grounds for Judicial Review: Illegality | 司法审查的主要理由：违法性
The grounds of judicial review were famously summarised by Lord Diplock in the GCHQ case as illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety. Illegality occurs when a public body has misunderstood or exceeded its legal powers. For example, a minister may make a decision that is not authorised by the relevant Act of Parliament, or may take into account factors that the law says must be ignored.
司法审查的理由由迪普洛克勋爵在 GCHQ 案中作出了著名总结，即违法性、不合理性和程序不当。违法性发生于公共机构误解或超越其法律权力之时。例如，大臣可能作出相关议会法律未授权的决定，或者考虑了法律要求必须忽略的因素。
A common form of illegality is fettering discretion. This happens when a public body adopts a rigid policy and refuses to consider the individual merits of a case. For instance, if a local housing authority states that all applications from a particular group will be automatically refused, it has unlawfully fettered its discretion. Courts will quash such decisions because they do not reflect a genuine exercise of the power conferred by Parliament.
违法性的一种常见形式是束缚自由裁量权。这发生在公共机构采用僵化政策并拒绝对个案的具体情况进行考虑时。例如，如果地方住房管理当局表示来自某一群体的所有申请都将被自动拒绝，它就非法束缚了其自由裁量权。法院将撤销这类决定，因为它们没有真正行使议会授予的权力。
4. Irrationality and Wednesbury Unreasonableness | 不合理性与温斯伯里不合理
Irrationality, also known as Wednesbury unreasonableness, applies to decisions that are so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have made them. The test is named after the 1948 case Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation, where the court held that a decision must be set aside if it is ‘so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it’.
不合理性，又称温斯伯里不合理，适用于那些极不合理、以至于任何合理的机构都不可能作出的决定。这一检验标准得名于 1948 年 ‘联合省电影院诉温斯伯里公司案’，该案中法院认为，如果一项决定 ‘如此不合理，以至于任何合理的机构都不可能作出’，则必须予以撤销。
This is a high threshold because courts are reluctant to replace the judgement of elected or expert bodies with their own. A decision can be harsh, unpopular, or even unfair in the ordinary sense, yet still lawful if it falls within the range of reasonable responses. For example, a council may choose to close a leisure centre to save money; that decision may be unpopular but is unlikely to be irrational unless it is based on no evidence or entirely ignores a statutory duty.
这是一个很高的门槛，因为法院不愿用自身的判断取代民选或专家机构的判断。一项决定可能是严厉的、不受欢迎的，甚至在通常意义上不公正，但只要属于合理反应的范围，就仍然是合法的。例如，市政委员会可能选择关闭休闲中心以节省开支；该决定可能不受欢迎，但除非毫无证据或完全无视法定职责，否则不太可能被认定为不合理。
5. Procedural Impropriety and Natural Justice | 程序不当与自然公正
Procedural impropriety covers failures to follow the correct legal procedures, including breaches of the rules of natural justice. Natural justice has two main limbs: the right to be heard (audi alteram partem) and the rule against bias (nemo iudex in causa sua). A public body must give affected individuals a fair opportunity to state their case before making a decision, and the decision-maker must be impartial.
程序不当包括未能遵循正确的法律程序，包括违反自然公正规则。自然公正有两大分支：获得听证的权利（audi alteram partem）和反对偏见的规则（nemo iudex in causa sua）。公共机构在作出决定之前必须给予受影响的个人公平陈述意见的机会，且决定者必须公正无私。
Examples of procedural impropriety include failing to hold a required public consultation, not giving reasons where there is a legitimate expectation to do so, or a planning committee member having a financial interest in the outcome of a decision. Such flaws can invalidate an otherwise lawful decision because the process itself was unfair.
程序不当的例子包括未进行所要求的公共咨询、在有合理期待的情况下未说明理由，或者规划委员会成员与决定结果存在财务利益。这些缺陷可能使原本合法的决定无效，因为程序本身不公平。
6. Proportionality and Human Rights Review | 比例原则与人权审查
Since the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force, UK courts have increasingly applied a proportionality test in cases involving Convention rights, such as the right to privacy, freedom of expression, and the right to family life. Proportionality requires the court to assess whether a public authority’s interference with a right is necessary and balanced against the aim pursued.
自 1998 年《人权法》生效以来，英国法院在涉及公约权利（如隐私权、言论自由权和家庭生活权）的案件中越来越多地适用比例原则。比例原则要求法院评估公共机构对权利的干预是否为达成目标所必需，并且是否与所追求的目标相平衡。
Proportionality is often contrasted with Wednesbury unreasonableness. It allows a more intensive review because the court must consider the balance between the individual right and the public interest, rather than merely asking whether the decision is outrageously unreasonable. For example, if a school bans a religious symbol, a court may review whether that ban is proportionate to the legitimate aim of maintaining school discipline and cohesion.
比例原则通常与温斯伯里不合理性形成对比。它允许进行更深入的审查，因为法院必须考虑个人权利与公共利益之间的平衡，而不仅仅是询问该决定是否极端不合理。例如，如果一所学校禁止某种宗教标志，法院可以审查该禁令对于维持学校纪律和凝聚力的合法目标是否比例相称。
7. The Permission Stage and Standing | 许可阶段与诉讼资格
A judicial review claim is not automatically heard. The claimant must first obtain permission from the High Court. This filter is designed to weed out weak or vexatious cases. The claimant must show that there is an arguable case, that the issue is one of public law, and that the claim has been brought promptly and within the relevant time
Published by TutorHao | A-Level Mathematics Revision Series | aleveler.com
更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）
屏轩国际教育cambridge primary/secondary checkpoint, cat4, ukiset,ukcat,igcse,alevel,PAT,STEP,MAT, ibdp,ap,ssat,sat,sat2课程辅导，国外大学本科硕士研究生博士课程论文辅导