ABSTRACT
This chapter identifies the precise gaps in our empirical knowledge and considers the significance of those gaps for the more general debate concerning judicial review in the United Kingdom. In addition to the uncertainty surrounding the capacity of the courts, there is a more fundamental debate concerning the proper task of judicial review within a pluralist democracy. According to orthodox theory the judicial review court, having no power to question primary legislation, seeks merely to uphold the will of Parliament, both express and implied. The chapter argues that the impact of judicial review is a significant issue for two main reasons. In the first place some understanding of its impact is essential to inform the current theoretical debate concerning the constitutional role of judicial review. Secondly judges do make and act upon intuitive assumptions concerning the impact of their intervention and it is of the utmost importance to provide the court with some independent alternative.
