A Judicial review is a process by which judges in the UK can review the lawfulness of decisions made by public bodies. It is a key constitutional principle that ensures the legality and fairness of government actions, and acts as a check on the exercise of public power.

In the UK, judicial review is primarily governed by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and the Human Rights Act 1998. It allows individuals, groups, or organizations with sufficient legal standing to challenge the lawfulness of decisions made by public bodies, such as government departments, local authorities, and regulatory bodies.

The grounds for judicial review include illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety. Illegality refers to situations where a public authority has acted beyond its legal powers or contrary to the law. Irrationality refers to cases where a decision made by a public authority is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have reached it.

Procedural impropriety refers to situations where a public authority has not followed the correct procedures in making a decision.

To initiate a judicial review, the claimant must demonstrate that they have sufficient interest in the matter and that all other remedies have been exhausted or are not suitable. The claim must be filed within strict time limits, typically within three months of the decision being challenged.

Once a judicial review application is accepted, the court will review the decision to determine whether it was lawful and fair. The court has the power to quash the decision, order a re-determination, or declare the law to be incompatible with human rights.

Judicial review plays a crucial role in holding public authorities accountable and ensuring that they act within their legal powers. It provides a mechanism for individuals and groups to challenge decisions that affect their rights and interests, and helps maintain the rule of law in the UK.