for successful appeal
Interpretation of law is important
for successful appeal
IN MOST court cases, the losing party can appeal a decision it doesnt like, if it can prove the judge got the law wrong, writes academic consultant Rosalind English.
But the appeal must be based on a complaint about the interpretation of the law. The next court up will not reconsider the facts of the case; it will interfere with the first judges decision only if he or she made an error of law.
There are a number of stages in judicial review where you can appeal. When you apply to the administrative court for judicial review of an administrative act or decision, you may be refused permission to proceed. In other words, the court will not even proceed to consider whether your complaint about unlawful government behaviour is justified.
There are many reasons for refusing permission at this initial stage; the court may think there are other avenues you could pursue, such as a complaint to the ombudsman; or you may have left it too late in making your application. You can appeal this initial refusal in the Court of Appeal which may consider for various reasons that it should proceed anyway.
Once the full judicial review hearing is under way, the judge in the administrative court hears all the arguments from the claimant and the government defendant, and it may consider that the government or local authority has acted unlawfully. Because the focus is on the lawfulness or otherwise of the public bodys action or decision, there is no scope for a factual interpretation of events.
Therefore, there is no reason in principle why any ruling of the first instance court (the Administrative Court) cannot be appealed, because the appeal will always be on a question of law. From the Court of Appeal it is sometimes possible to appeal to the House of Lords.
Recent appeals show that government defendants are as likely to get a case overturned on appeal as applicants are.
• Rosalind English is academic consultant at 1 Crown Office Row. *