There is a new form of “anxious scrutiny”. Is that Human Rights Act point really a proper one to take? Does the Convention really add anything to the established, domestic law, approach to your case? Is your citation of Strasbourg authority sufficiently selective and focused? In other words, is your human rights argument necessary and proportionate? This article reviews so of the cases which are relevant to these questions.
Judicial Review is now firmly established as the UK's leading journal for lawyers engaged in judicial review, catering for both practitioners and academics. It offers invaluable insights from today's foremost judicial review experts, combining analysis of general judicial review matters with practical information and guidelines for use by practitioners in the prepartation and conduct of applications for judicial review. The journal includes short and accessible items on the law, practice and procedure and recent cases. There is coverage of sub-topics within judicial review such as constitutional change, prison cases, commercial, and environmental judicial review. Other popular features are reviews of the academic literature, surveys of the leading cases, case commentaries and summaries of recent research.