I'm not a TV person and even if I was I rarely get the chance to watch it  Regardless of that, I've been planning to make time to finish the box set of House of Cards for the last six months, a must see for anyone interested in communications or politics.  However, I stumbled across an old edition of Citizen Smith recently, it really brought me back to my youth.  You may recall the charismatic Robert Lindsay who played the role of Citizen Smith, a dreamer who wanted to change the world with the catchy strapline, in his sirenic cockney tone, 'Power to the People'.It got me thinking just how things have changed since the time of that series in so many areas of society, not least to the accountability and transparency of public organisations.  Back then those two words were what public bodies told you they were, and the majority of people  believed them.  Where they didn't, the recourse was hard and arduous. That power base has since shifted and the public rightly demands complete accountability and transparency from any organisation carrying out a public function.  With the frequency of injunctions and judicial reviews, there are those that would argue that the scales have been tipped a little too far.  There has been, in recent times,  a significant growth in the use of judicial reviews to challenge a wide range of actions and activities. A new verb has been added to the lawyer’s dictionary with advice being given to clients that an action might result in them being “JR’d”.In England and Wales judicial reviews more than doubled in a decade from around 4,500 in 2001 to over 11,000 in 2011. Here in Northern Ireland judicial review claims funded by legal aid increased from 205 in 2005 to 446 in 2010 with the resulting increased cost borne by the legal aid fund.  However the number of such cases seems to have reached a plateau over the last few years remaining between 250 and 350.A means of challenging the decisions or actions of a body performing a public function, almost all of those judicial review cases which were legally aided were funded from government to challenge a decision or action of another government or quasi-government body.  Indeed in some instances the funding was to challenge the very department that was providing the funding. The increase in use of judicial reviews led to a pre-action protocol which may be responsible for the reduction in the increase.  This requires the details of the case to be given in advance and should weed out unmeritorious cases at an earlier stage. Indeed every judicial review application has to secure permission from the court, providing a further weeding out of weak cases.However this ubiquity within judicial reviews has seen a government consultation led by Chris Grayling, the Secretary of State for Justice and the Lord Chancellor, being launched last year which sought to further reform the process.  Apparently only around one in six of all applications lodged in 2011 and considered by the court were granted permission to proceed.  However this still adds a layer of procedure that can cause delay and cost money.  Grayling has proposed that the time limit within which “JRs” can be taken should be reduced from the already short 3 months to 6 weeks and 30 days for planning cases so that vexatious litigants cannot use the procedure to hold up development.  Government argue that the delay caused by judicial review does not just slow down the decision making process and add to costs but creates uncertainty which may discourage investment, placing the financial viability of projects at risk.  They're right, whilst the conditions and accessibility of bringing a JR must always be fully respected, the system cannot be used as a delaying tactic to hold up development and progress.  This is no more prevalent than in challenging economic conditions when major infrastructural projects have a greater good for the economy and the significant majority of those in our society. A good example of this here in Northern Ireland was the much debated Runkerry development on the Antrim Coast with some commentators speculating that the timing was designed to have maximum impact in terms of delaying the project.  The rest is history with the courts coming down in favour of the project progressing. There is an accountability and transparency windfall for us all in this, with government departments and organisations that carry out public functions being prepared for a judicial review challenge on any given issue or project. Organisations, such as the DOE who the National Trust took the JR against, know that they will be accountable.  Every step of the process needs to stand up to scrutiny, procedures and policies have to be water tight and the organisation in question consistently ensures it 'judicially review proofs' everything it does.  These organisations expect it and are ready for it.  From a governance perspective this is good for society, there is nothing like the fear of retribution to ensure fairness and efficiencies.JR's are of course a very costly business whether funded by the public purse or a private organisation, with better governance there'll be less need for judicial reviews and everyone in society will be the winner.

Aiken PR | 418 Lisburn Road, Belfast BT9 6GN | 24 Holles Street, Dublin 2t: 00 44 28 9066 3000  f: 00 44 28 9068 3030  roi: 00353 1 77 55 890  | w: www.aikenpr.com | tw: @aikenpr