Judicial review | AQA A-Level Law
For Specification 7162
AQA A-Level Law | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 55 minutes
Judicial review allows the courts to examine the legality of decisions made by public authorities and can provide an important way of enforcing Human Rights within the domestic legal system. These Judicial review A-Level Law revision notes explain the process at the level required by AQA, how judicial review can be used where police or other public bodies interfere with Convention rights, and how to recognise situations in which it may provide an appropriate challenge. AQA expressly includes the process of judicial review within the enforcement section of the Human Rights specification.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Explain the basic purpose and process of judicial review.
Explain how courts use judicial review to examine the legality of public authority decisions.
Explain how judicial review can contribute to the enforcement of Convention rights.
Distinguish judicial review from other Human Rights remedies and challenges.
Identify public decisions which may appropriately be challenged by judicial review.
Apply judicial review to factual scenarios involving police and other public authorities.
Revision Notes 📚
What is judicial review?
Judicial review is a process through which a court examines the legality of a decision or action by a public authority.
AQA directly tests this basic principle.
In the 2025 examination, the statement that judges can review the legality of a government decision was correct.
The key word is legality.
Judicial review is concerned with whether a public body has exercised its powers lawfully.
It provides an important mechanism for ensuring that bodies exercising public power remain subject to law.
Judicial review and the rule of law
Judicial review connects closely with the rule of law.
AQA's rule of law materials emphasise that:
individuals and institutions are subject to law
public power should not be arbitrary
legal processes should be available to resolve disputes.
Judicial review contributes to these ideas by allowing judges to examine whether a public authority has acted within the law.
This links back to Rule of law: applying the principles [Lesson 11. Rule of law: applying the principles].
Who can be reviewed?
Judicial review is concerned with decisions involving public power.
AQA Human Rights assessment materials particularly use judicial review in connection with:
police decisions
restrictions imposed on demonstrations
arrest and detention
government decisions
delegated legislation.
For example, the 2021 examination treated it as correct that the validity of delegated legislation can be challenged by judicial review.
This shows that judicial review is not limited to Human Rights cases, although its Human Rights role is the main focus of this lesson.
Public authorities and Human Rights
Under s6 Human Rights Act 1998, public authorities must act compatibly with Convention rights.
Police officers are regularly treated in AQA assessment materials as agents of the State and therefore public authorities.
If a public authority exercises its powers in a way which unlawfully interferes with a Convention right, judicial review may provide one route through which that decision can be challenged.
This builds directly on Domestic courts and Human Rights [Lesson 181. Domestic courts and Human Rights].
What does the court review?
The court examines the lawfulness of the public authority's decision or action.
This means that a student should focus on questions such as:
Did the public authority have legal power to act?
Were the relevant legal requirements satisfied?
Was a Convention right engaged?
If the right was qualified, was the interference justified?
Was the decision compatible with the Human Rights Act?
The central issue is not simply whether the judge personally thinks that another decision would have been preferable.
Example
Police impose severe restrictions on a peaceful demonstration.
The relevant questions may include:
Did domestic law give the police power to impose the restriction?
Were the conditions required by that law actually satisfied?
Were Articles 10 and 11 engaged?
Was the interference prescribed by law?
Did it pursue a permitted aim?
Was it necessary and proportionate?
If the restriction cannot be legally justified, judicial review may be an appropriate way to challenge the police decision.
AQA's 2023 mark scheme expressly identified judicial review as a possible challenge to severe police limits placed on a public meeting.
Judicial review within Human Rights enforcement
The AQA specification places the process of judicial review within the Human Rights enforcement section, immediately alongside:
claims before the European Court of Human Rights
the role of domestic courts
the effect of decisions on states and claimants.
This placement is important.
Judicial review is one way in which Human Rights can be protected domestically, without immediately taking a case to the European Court of Human Rights.
The Human Rights Act connection
A useful structure is:
A public authority makes a decision or takes action.
The action interferes with a person's Convention right.
The person argues that the action is incompatible with the Convention.
Section 6 HRA requires the public authority to act compatibly with Convention rights.
The legality of the public authority's decision may be challenged through judicial review where appropriate.
AQA repeatedly credits students for recognising this connection between judicial review, public authority powers and Convention rights.
Judicial review is not the only Human Rights route
This is an important examination point.
AQA's 2024 multiple-choice question made it clear that the statement:
an alleged breach of s6 HRA by a public authority can only be challenged by judicial review
is false.
Judicial review is therefore a possible route, not the exclusive method of enforcing Human Rights.
Other possibilities may include:
proceedings under s7 Human Rights Act 1998
relying on Convention rights as part of an existing case
appealing or challenging a conviction where appropriate.
The domestic enforcement framework is explained in Domestic courts and Human Rights [Lesson 181. Domestic courts and Human Rights].
Judicial review and police decisions
AQA frequently uses police conduct because police exercise significant public powers and are bound by Convention rights.
Judicial review may become relevant where a person wishes to challenge the legality of a police decision.
Examples from AQA materials include:
an allegedly unlawful arrest
an order to disperse demonstrators
severe restrictions on a public assembly
police action interfering with Articles 10 and 11.
Judicial review and Article 5
Article 5 protects liberty and security of person.
In the 2023 examination, Hugh was arrested by police. The examiner report explained that if his arrest lacked the necessary lawful basis, judicial review could potentially be used to challenge its lawfulness.
This illustrates the relationship between:
domestic arrest law
Article 5
judicial review.
Example
Police arrest Yasmin even though the facts provide no reasonable grounds for suspecting her of an offence.
The arrest may:
fail to comply with domestic arrest law
amount to an unjustified deprivation of liberty under Article 5
constitute incompatible action by a public authority under s6 HRA.
AQA materials indicate that judicial review may be one available method of challenging the lawfulness of such State action.
Article 5.4 and challenging detention
Article 5.4 itself protects the right of a person deprived of liberty to take proceedings challenging the lawfulness of their detention.
AQA's 2023 examiner report explains that students could link this with:
s7 HRA
judicial review where appropriate.
This does not mean that judicial review is required in every Article 5 case.
It means it can form part of the available domestic enforcement mechanisms.
Judicial review and Articles 10 and 11
Judicial review is particularly useful in AQA protest scenarios.
Articles 10 and 11 protect:
freedom of expression
peaceful assembly and association.
Police may have domestic powers to regulate demonstrations, but those powers must be exercised compatibly with the Convention.
A public decision restricting protest can therefore be challenged where the claimant argues that the State has gone beyond what the law permits.
Example: limits on a demonstration
Suppose police impose a severe limit on the number of people permitted to attend a peaceful public meeting.
The protestors may argue that:
Article 11 is engaged because they are peacefully assembling
Article 10 is engaged because they are communicating their views
the restriction interferes with both rights
the interference is not sufficiently justified.
AQA's June 2023 mark scheme specifically states that severe limits imposed on a public meeting could be challenged through judicial review on an Articles 10 and 11 basis.
The Human Rights analysis still matters
Simply writing:
"They can judicially review the police."
is not enough.
The student should first establish why the police decision may be unlawful.
For Articles 10 and 11, that might involve showing that:
the rights are engaged
police action interferes with those rights
there must be a domestic legal basis for the interference
a permitted aim must be identified
the restriction must be necessary in a democratic society
the measure must be proportionate.
These requirements are developed in General requirements governing restrictions [Lesson 179. General requirements governing restrictions].
Judicial review is the mechanism of challenge. The Convention provisions help explain why the challenged decision may be unlawful.
Judicial review and disproportionate police action
AQA's 2024 examiner report provides another example.
Gerson had been arrested during a protest. Some students argued that his arrest was a disproportionate interference with Articles 10 and 11.
On that interpretation, the report stated that he might challenge his conviction by:
appeal
or seeking judicial review
and potentially seek a Human Rights remedy.
The important lesson is that judicial review may become relevant where a public authority's decision is alleged to be disproportionate and incompatible with Convention rights.
Judicial review and hostile counter-protests
The same principles may apply where police restrict peaceful protestors because other people are threatening violence.
Suppose:
Group A is peacefully exercising Articles 10 and 11
Group B threatens Group A
police disperse Group A simply because it is easier.
The protestors may argue that the police decision was a disproportionate way of dealing with the situation.
AQA's 2021 mark scheme expressly recognised that an instruction to peaceful protestors to disperse could potentially be challenged by judicial review where the response appeared disproportionate.
Judicial review and delegated legislation
Although this lesson focuses on Human Rights enforcement, AQA also expects students to recognise judicial review as a broader control on public law-making powers.
AQA's 2021 paper identified as correct that the validity of delegated legislation may be challenged through judicial review.
This links with Controls over delegated legislation [Lesson 23. Controls over delegated legislation].
The unifying principle is the same:
The court is examining whether public power has been exercised lawfully.
Judicial review and government decisions
AQA's 2025 paper similarly identifies as correct that judges can review the legality of a government decision.
This illustrates judicial review's constitutional importance.
Government is not above the law. Its decisions may be examined by an independent judiciary.
This also links with Judicial independence [Lesson 48. Judicial independence], because effective review of executive action depends upon courts being able to decide cases without improper government influence.
The process at the level required by AQA
The specification itself requires the process of judicial review, but the provided AQA specification and assessment materials do not set out detailed procedural rules such as a particular permission test, standing rule or filing timetable.
For the material supplied, the examination process is best understood through the following stages.
Stage 1: identify a public decision or action
There must be an exercise of public power suitable for review.
Examples include:
a police decision
a government decision
a restriction imposed on a demonstration
delegated legislation.
Stage 2: identify why its legality is disputed
The claimant must be able to point to a legal problem.
In Human Rights scenarios, this may involve:
an absence of proper domestic legal authority
failure to satisfy the conditions attached to a statutory power
unjustified interference with a Convention right
incompatibility with the obligations of a public authority under s6 HRA.
Stage 3: bring the legality of the decision before the domestic court
Judicial review enables a court to examine the challenged public action.
AQA's 2024 mark scheme specifically refers to the Administrative Court when discussing the possible outcomes of a judicial review case.
Stage 4: the court examines the relevant law
The court may need to consider:
the domestic source of the public authority's power
whether the statutory or common law requirements were met
the relevant Convention right
the Human Rights Act.
Stage 5: the court determines whether the public action was lawful
The focus remains the legality of the decision.
If Human Rights are involved, the court may have to determine whether the State's interference was compatible with the relevant Convention Article.
Stage 6: consider the available court response
AQA recognises that the Administrative Court has remedies available in a judicial review case, while also emphasising that courts operate within their legal powers.
Judicial review does not automatically produce damages
Judicial review should not simply be equated with compensation.
AQA's materials distinguish between:
challenging the legality of the public decision
seeking Human Rights remedies under the Human Rights Act.
For example, the 2024 examiner report considered a situation where an individual might challenge a decision through judicial review and also seek damages for an Articles 10 and 11 breach under s8 HRA.
This shows that the two issues should be kept conceptually separate.
Judicial review and s8 HRA
Where the court finds incompatible action by a public authority, s8 HRA may become relevant.
As studied in Domestic courts and Human Rights [Lesson 181. Domestic courts and Human Rights], s8 allows a court to grant relief or a remedy within its powers which it considers just and appropriate.
AQA's 2024 mark scheme specifically discusses:
s8 HRA remedies
ECtHR remedies
the options available to the Administrative Court in judicial review
as related but distinct aspects of Human Rights enforcement.
Judicial review is different from an appeal
AQA assessment materials sometimes refer to appeal or judicial review as alternative possibilities.
This tells you that the two concepts should not be treated as identical.
For AQA purposes:
judicial review examines the legality of public action or decision-making
an appeal is a different legal route for challenging a court decision or conviction where an appropriate right of appeal exists.
Do not use the terms interchangeably.
Example
A protestor is convicted of a public order offence.
AQA's 2024 examiner report suggested that, depending on the facts, a student might discuss:
an appeal against the conviction
judicial review
Human Rights remedies.
The correct route will depend upon precisely what decision or action is being challenged.
Judicial review and the European Court of Human Rights
Judicial review is a domestic process.
It is not an application to the European Court of Human Rights.
This matters because applicants must normally use available domestic remedies before seeking to take a Convention claim to Strasbourg.
Judicial review may therefore contribute to the domestic protection which precedes a possible application to the ECtHR.
This connects with European Court of Human Rights [Lesson 180. European Court of Human Rights].
A simple enforcement pathway
A Human Rights dispute might therefore develop as follows:
a public authority makes a decision
the decision interferes with a Convention right
the individual challenges its legality domestically
judicial review may be an appropriate route
a domestic court considers the relevant law and Convention obligation
other Human Rights Act remedies may also be relevant
once appropriate domestic remedies have been exhausted, an ECtHR application may potentially follow.
Judicial review therefore fits within a wider enforcement system rather than replacing every other remedy.
When should you spot judicial review in an exam?
Judicial review should come to mind particularly where the scenario describes:
a public authority
making a decision
which affects an individual's legal or Convention rights
and the issue is whether that exercise of power was lawful.
Typical triggers include phrases such as:
"the police imposed a condition"
"the council decided"
"the government ordered"
"the police instructed the demonstrators to disperse"
"the arrest was unlawful"
"delegated legislation exceeded lawful authority".
When judicial review may not be the main route
Do not force judicial review into every Human Rights problem.
AQA's 2024 multiple-choice material expressly establishes that an s6 breach does not have to be challenged only through judicial review.
For example:
an individual may bring an HRA claim under s7
a criminal defendant may rely on Human Rights arguments in proceedings
an appeal may be appropriate for challenging a conviction
a dispute between private parties may depend on a domestic civil cause of action.
A good student selects judicial review because the nature of the public decision makes it appropriate, not simply because a Human Rights issue exists.
Applying judicial review to factual scenarios
Use the following structure.
Step 1: identify the decision-maker
Ask:
Is this a public authority exercising public power?
Police and government decisions are clear examples found in AQA materials.
Step 2: identify the public decision
Be specific.
For example:
The decision being challenged is the police order limiting the peaceful assembly to five people.
This is better than:
The police did something wrong.
Step 3: identify the legal basis
Ask:
What power is the public authority claiming to use?
If the relevant domestic law is given in the scenario, apply it.
Step 4: identify any Convention right
For example:
Article 5 for detention
Article 8 for privacy
Article 10 for expression
Article 11 for assembly.
Step 5: determine why the decision may be unlawful
For qualified rights such as Articles 8, 10 and 11, apply the principles from General requirements governing restrictions [Lesson 179. General requirements governing restrictions].
Ask whether the interference:
has a legal basis
pursues a permitted aim
responds to a pressing social need
is proportionate.
Step 6: identify judicial review as a possible challenge
If the public decision appears legally defective:
The claimant may seek judicial review of the legality of the public authority's decision.
Step 7: consider other relevant remedies
Do not assume judicial review is the only possibility.
Also consider, where supported by the facts:
HRA ss6 to 8
appeal
another domestic proceeding.
Worked example: restriction on protest
Scenario
Forty campaigners hold a peaceful demonstration in a public park. They are not blocking paths or threatening anyone. Police use a statutory power to restrict the gathering to four people, claiming only that a smaller group would be easier to manage.
Application
The police are a public authority exercising public power.
Their decision to restrict the gathering is therefore the type of public decision which may potentially be challenged.
Articles 10 and 11 are engaged because the campaigners are:
communicating their views
peacefully assembling.
The limit substantially interferes with both rights.
Although the police may have a statutory power capable of imposing conditions, the precise use of that power must remain compatible with the Convention.
The absence of disorder, obstruction or danger creates a strong argument that such a severe restriction is disproportionate.
The campaigners could therefore potentially seek judicial review of the legality of the police decision, alongside any appropriate Human Rights Act arguments.
This reflects AQA's 2023 treatment of severe limits placed on a public meeting.
Worked example: lawful decision
Scenario
A march is planned through a street where serious violence has already begun. Police have a lawful power to change its route and direct the march down a nearby street instead. The protest is still permitted to continue.
Application
Articles 10 and 11 are engaged and the route change interferes with the protestors' rights.
However:
the police have a domestic legal power
serious violence provides a strong public-order justification
changing the route preserves the protest rather than banning it.
The restriction therefore appears proportionate.
Although judicial review is a method for challenging public decisions, a challenge is unlikely to succeed merely because the protestors prefer the original route. The central issue is whether the police decision was lawful and Convention-compatible.
Worked example: unlawful arrest
Scenario
Police arrest Theo solely because he is standing near the scene of an offence. There is nothing linking him to the crime and no other factual basis for reasonable suspicion.
Application
Theo's arrest is a deprivation of liberty, so Article 5 is engaged.
If domestic arrest law requires reasonable grounds for suspicion and those grounds do not exist, the arrest may be unlawful.
This may also prevent the State from relying on Article 5.1(c) to justify the deprivation.
AQA's 2023 examiner report specifically recognised judicial review as a possible way of challenging the lawfulness of an arrest.
Theo may therefore have grounds for a domestic challenge, with other remedies under the Human Rights Act also potentially relevant.
Judicial review as part of constitutional control
Judicial review is significant beyond the individual claimant.
It allows courts to ensure that:
government
police
other public authorities
exercise their powers within legal limits.
This reinforces the idea that executive authorities are governed by law rather than possessing unrestricted discretion.
AQA's 2025 paper directly tested this constitutional role through the correct statement that judges can review the legality of government decisions.
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Judicial review | A domestic court process for examining the legality of a decision or action involving public power. | Identify it where a claimant wants to challenge an allegedly unlawful public authority decision. |
Public authority | A State body required by s6 HRA to act compatibly with Convention rights. | Identify whether a police or government decision may raise both judicial review and Human Rights issues. |
Legality | Whether the decision-maker has exercised public power consistently with the law. | Keep the focus of judicial review on the lawfulness of the challenged action. |
Administrative Court | The court referred to in AQA materials when considering judicial review remedies. | Identify the domestic judicial setting in which a judicial review case may be considered. |
Convention-compatible | Acting consistently with the rights and permitted restrictions contained in the ECHR. | Assess whether a public authority's decision complies with its s6 HRA obligations. |
Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡
Examiner hint: Judicial review is a possible Human Rights enforcement route, not the only one. AQA's 2024 assessment expressly rejected the claim that every alleged s6 HRA breach can only be challenged through judicial review.
Examiner hint: Spot judicial review when the question concerns the lawfulness of a public authority decision. The 2023 examiner report specifically credited students who recognised that the legality of an arrest could potentially be challenged by judicial review.
Examiner hint: Protest scenarios are a key context. AQA's 2023 mark scheme recognised judicial review as a possible challenge to severe limits imposed by police on a public meeting where Articles 10 and 11 were engaged.
Examiner hint: Do not simply name judicial review. Stronger Human Rights answers identify the relevant domestic power, apply the Convention right and explain why the public authority's decision may be unlawful before reaching a conclusion about challenge or remedy.
Examiner hint: Separate judicial review from an appeal. The 2024 report referred to challenging a conviction by appeal or seeking judicial review, showing that the terms describe different routes.
Examiner hint: Judicial review also has a wider public-law role. AQA has tested both the ability to challenge the validity of delegated legislation and the judicial power to examine the legality of government decisions.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Saying judicial review is an appeal
Why this is incorrect: AQA materials distinguish between appealing a decision and seeking judicial review.
How to improve: Describe judicial review as examining the legality of public action or decision-making.
Mistake: Saying every Human Rights breach must use judicial review
Why this is incorrect: AQA specifically identifies this proposition as false. Human Rights Act proceedings and other legal routes may also be available.
How to improve: Say judicial review may be an appropriate method of challenge where the legality of a public decision is at issue.
Mistake: Naming judicial review without identifying the unlawful decision
Why this is incorrect: This gives no legal reason why the review would be relevant.
How to improve: Identify the exact public decision and explain why it may conflict with domestic law or a Convention right.
Mistake: Ignoring the Convention test
Why this is incorrect: Where the alleged unlawfulness concerns Articles 8, 10 or 11, the question of whether interference is justified must be analysed.
How to improve: Apply the relevant right, permitted aim, necessity and proportionality before concluding that the decision is vulnerable to challenge.
Mistake: Assuming disagreement with a public authority is enough
Why this is incorrect: The fact that a claimant dislikes a decision does not establish that it is unlawful.
How to improve: Focus on the legal defect in the public authority's exercise of power.
Mistake: Assuming judicial review always results in damages
Why this is incorrect: AQA distinguishes judicial review from remedies available under the Human Rights Act. Compensation is not an automatic consequence of seeking review.
How to improve: Discuss the legality challenge first and then identify any additional Human Rights remedy separately.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Which one of the following best describes judicial review?
A. A process allowing judges to replace any government decision they dislike.
B. A process through which the legality of public decisions may be reviewed by a court.
C. A direct appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.
D. The only method by which an s6 HRA breach may be challenged.
[1 mark]
Question 2
State two types of decision or action which AQA materials identify as capable of being challenged through judicial review.
[2 marks]
Question 3
Explain how judicial review can contribute to the domestic enforcement of Human Rights.
[5 marks]
Question 4
Explain why the following statement is incorrect:
"Whenever a public authority breaches s6 Human Rights Act 1998, the victim must use judicial review and no other legal procedure."
[5 marks]
Question 5
Police restrict a peaceful public assembly to five participants. There is no evidence of disorder, obstruction or danger. The protestors argue that the restriction disproportionately interferes with Articles 10 and 11.
Explain why judicial review may be relevant.
[5 marks]
Question 6
A government department makes a decision affecting Aaron. Aaron strongly dislikes the decision but cannot identify any rule of law or Convention right which the department has infringed.
Explain whether the mere fact that Aaron disagrees with the decision establishes a basis for judicial review.
[5 marks]
Question 7
Police arrest Beth without any objective facts supporting reasonable suspicion that she has committed an offence.
Analyse how judicial review and Article 5 may become relevant.
[10 marks]
Question 8
A peaceful demonstration is taking place in a town centre. A hostile counter-protest begins threatening violence. Police have sufficient officers to separate the two groups but instead order the peaceful demonstrators to disperse. The demonstrators wish to challenge the police decision.
Analyse how judicial review may contribute to their Human Rights protection.
[10 marks]
Question 9
Explain the process of judicial review at the level required for the Human Rights section of AQA A-Level Law.
[10 marks]
Answers and Indicative Mark Scheme
Question 1
Answer: B.
Judicial review enables a court to examine the legality of a public decision or action.
[1 mark]
Question 2
Credit any two examples supported by AQA materials, including:
a government decision
a police decision restricting a public assembly
an allegedly unlawful arrest
delegated legislation.
Maximum: 2 marks.
Question 3
Indicative content:
Public authorities must act compatibly with Convention rights under s6 HRA.
Judicial review allows the legality of public authority decisions to be challenged.
A claimant may argue that the public authority has acted outside its lawful powers or exercised them incompatibly with a Convention right.
Domestic courts can therefore examine the decision without the claimant first going to the ECtHR.
Judicial review operates alongside other Human Rights Act enforcement mechanisms.
Maximum: 5 marks.
Question 4
Indicative content:
Section 6 requires public authorities to act compatibly with Convention rights.
Judicial review can sometimes be used to challenge incompatible public decisions.
However, it is not the exclusive Human Rights enforcement mechanism.
AQA's 2024 assessment expressly identified the proposition that an s6 breach can only be challenged by judicial review as false.
A victim may, depending on the circumstances, use s7 HRA or rely on Convention rights in other domestic proceedings.
An appeal may also be relevant where a conviction or court decision is being challenged.
Maximum: 5 marks.
Question 5
Indicative content:
Police are a public authority.
Their restriction on the assembly is an exercise of public power.
The peaceful gathering engages Article 11.
The protestors' communication of views may also engage Article 10.
Limiting the gathering to five people is an interference.
The absence of disorder, obstruction or danger creates an argument that the restriction lacks sufficient justification and may be disproportionate.
Judicial review may therefore be used to challenge the legality of the police decision.
Other Human Rights Act remedies may also potentially be relevant.
Maximum: 5 marks.
Question 6
Indicative content:
Judicial review concerns the legality of public decision-making.
Judges can review the legality of government decisions.
Mere disagreement does not by itself establish that the department acted unlawfully.
Aaron would need to identify a legal basis for challenging the exercise of public power.
Where Human Rights are relied upon, he would need to identify the relevant Convention right and explain how the decision is incompatible with it.
On the stated facts, dissatisfaction alone does not establish an appropriate challenge.
Maximum: 5 marks.
Question 7
Indicative content:
AO1
Judicial review can examine the legality of a public authority's decision.
Police are a public authority.
Article 5 protects liberty and security of person.
An arrest is a deprivation of liberty.
AQA materials recognise judicial review as a possible way of challenging the lawfulness of an arrest.
AO2
Beth has been arrested and therefore deprived of liberty.
The facts state that there is no objective basis for reasonable suspicion.
If domestic arrest law requires reasonable grounds, the arrest may therefore be unlawful.
A lack of lawful arrest may also prevent reliance on Article 5.1(c).
The police may consequently have acted incompatibly with Article 5.
AO3
Beth may have grounds to challenge the legality of the police action through judicial review.
She may also have rights and remedies under the Human Rights Act.
Judicial review should therefore be described as one possible domestic route rather than the sole Human Rights remedy.
Maximum: 10 marks.
Question 8
Indicative content:
AO1
Article 10 protects freedom of expression.
Article 11 protects peaceful assembly.
Police are public authorities and must act compatibly with Convention rights.
State interference with Articles 10 and 11 must have a legal basis, pursue a permitted aim and be necessary and proportionate.
Judicial review may be used to challenge the legality of police decisions.
AO2
The original demonstrators are peaceful.
Their gathering engages Article 11.
Their protest message engages Article 10.
The threat comes from the hostile counter-protest rather than the peaceful demonstrators.
Police have sufficient resources to separate the groups.
Ordering the peaceful group to disperse substantially interferes with its rights.
AO3
Preventing disorder and protecting public safety provide legitimate aims, so some police intervention is justified.
However, dispersing the peaceful group when a less restrictive alternative is available may be disproportionate.
The demonstrators could therefore have a strong argument that the police decision is incompatible with Articles 10 and 11.
Judicial review may provide an appropriate route for challenging the legality of that decision.
Other Human Rights Act remedies may also potentially arise.
Maximum: 10 marks.
Question 9
Indicative content:
A developed answer should explain that:
Judicial review concerns the legality of public authority action or decision-making.
The claimant identifies the particular public decision being challenged.
The legal reason why that decision may be unlawful must be established.
In a Human Rights problem, this may involve incompatibility with a Convention right and s6 HRA.
The relevant domestic source of the authority's power should be considered.
The Convention right and any permitted justification should be applied.
The legality of the public authority's action may then be examined domestically through judicial review.
AQA materials refer to judicial review proceedings in the Administrative Court.
Judicial review is not the only method of Human Rights enforcement.
Other proceedings or remedies under the Human Rights Act may also be relevant.
Credit application to examples involving police restrictions on protests, unlawful arrest, government decisions or delegated legislation.
Maximum: 10 marks.
Comments