Report comment

Political persuasions aside, the Judicial Review reforms are deplorable. Invariably, it is the most effective way in democracy of holding the government and public authorities accountable for any acts or omissions which breach fundamental rights.

JR is an ancient and antiquated principle which can be traced back to Medieval times - it's place is rooted in British jurisprudence. It is an essential cornerstone, and one which must be continued. Why should the executive have this almost limitless power which they cannot be regulated on by the average Joe? It is fundamental to the rule of law in our country that executive decisions are open to review by judges to see that they adhere to the rule of law. When this is taken away, it will be damaging to the constitution.

Why should the people whom are governed not challenge those who are governing? How about democratic accountability? How about an over-powerful executive? The former is essential; the latter is dangerous.

The general consensus of the averagely prudent is that only the rich can afford 'justice' whereas the poorer have to suffer. With legal aid cuts, a levy on civil claims and employment tribunal fees rising, it's almost impossible for justice to be correctly served. The poorer should not have to fear. And while this comment has veered off the general topic, the point is salient.