INTRODUCTION

This chapter is designed to provide a brief overview of the empirical research conducted on the impact of judicial review on bureaucratic decision-making in the UK. While both impact and judicial review are terms which require further definition, an extensive analysis has been provided in Part 1 of this volume and there is therefore no need to dwell too long on matters of definition here. Nonetheless, before describing the existing research, it is necessary to place both judicial review and impact within a UK context, and the first part of this chapter provides some introductory background. The second part then presents a brief survey of the relevant research in the UK, and the third part further analyses some of the data to emerge from a study conducted by the author and a colleague in 1997–9. Finally, the fourth part considers how far these findings can be applied in other decision-making contexts. A concluding part indicates some possible ways forward for impact research in the UK.

SETTING THE CONTEXT

Judicial review

The purpose of judicial review

As is abundantly evident from other contributions to this volume, judicial review not only performs different formal tasks within different jurisdictions and constitutional arrangements, but it is also the subject of different aspirations and expectations. There is no universally agreed purpose of judicial review. Certainly in the UK the fundamental justification for judicial review is hotly contested. This theoretical uncertainty, however, need not inhibit empirical investigation.