VocabuLaw

Justiciability

What is it and what does it mean?

Description of the legal term Justiciability:

Justiciability concerns the attributes of a dispute that allow it to be appropriately resolved by the courts. In British law, a justiciable issue is one that is suitable for adjudication by the judicial system and meets the legal criteria to be decided upon by a judge. This implies that the issue has a legal basis, involves concrete rights that can be resolved through the application of law, and is not a political question or purely hypothetical.

For a dispute to be justiciable, it must be a real and substantial controversy affecting legal rights, rather than a theoretical or abstract question. The matter must be ripe for determination, meaning that there must be a definitive and concrete situation rather than a potential or uncertain event. Additionally, the litigating parties must have a genuine stake in the outcome – they must demonstrate sufficient interest or standing to bring the case.

Also critical to justiciability is the principle of the separation of powers. British courts generally avoid deciding on issues that are deemed to be non-justiciable because they fall within the purview of the executive or legislative branches, thus respecting the distinction between judicial and political matters. This deference ensures that each branch of government functions independently and without undue interference.

Furthermore, for an issue to be justiciable, there should be judicially manageable standards for the court to apply. If a court is to address a matter, it must be able to do so in a manner that is consistent with judicial processes and principles, applying legal rules and methods of reasoning.

A justiciable issue also requires that a court is capable of providing a remedy if one is warranted. If the court’s intervention could not result in a practical resolution or the court is unable to enforce its judgments, such a matter would be deemed non-justiciable.

Legal context in which the term Justiciability may be used:

One illustrative example is the case of A and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2005), also known as the Belmarsh case. In this instance, the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) ruled that the indefinite detention without trial of foreign nationals under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was discriminatory and disproportionate, and therefore a breach of human rights. The court concluded that the issue was justiciable because it involved legal rights under the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic British law. This case underscores how the courts can adjudicate on matters that engage substantive legal rights, even in the context of national security, provided such matters are within the judicial remit.

Another notable example where justiciability was at the forefront is the series of cases involving Brexit, including the case of Miller v The Prime Minister (2019). In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court considered whether the advice given by the Prime Minister to the Queen to prorogue Parliament was justiciable. The court found that it was, as the issue concerned the legal limits of the powers exercised by the Prime Minister and had implications for the fundamental principles of democracy and the sovereignty of Parliament. By deeming the question justiciable, the court was able to assess the legality of the Prime Minister’s actions, underlining the accountability of the government to the law.

Understanding the concept of justiciability is vital in the British judicial system, as it delineates the boundary between the courts and the other branches of government while ensuring that individuals can seek legal remedies for the infringement of rights that the law is designed to protect. It maintains the rule of law and the proper functioning of democracy by ensuring that the courts only take on cases that are within their constitutional and legal purview.

This website is for informational purposes only and may contain inaccuracies. It should not be used as a substitute for professional legal advice.