Collection of responses to the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL)

Given the decision of the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL) not to make publicly available responses received as part of its call for evidence, UKAJI has decided to bring together in one place IRAL responses which have been made public. Should you wish to include an IRAL responses on this page, please contact Lee Marsons on lm17598@essex.ac.uk. The collection was last updated on: 09/08/2021.

Professional bodies

• The Administrative Law Bar Association (ALBA) published its response to the IRAL.
• Young Legal Aid Lawyers published its response to the IRAL.
• The Bar Council published its response to IRAL.
• The Law Society of England and Wales published its response to IRAL.
• The Faculty of Advocates published its response to IRAL.
• The Housing Law Practitioners Association response to IRAL is here.
• UK Finance, a private body for the banking and finance industry, published its response here.
• Law Works, a solicitors pro bono group, published its response here.
• South West Administrative Lawyers Association published its IRAL response here.
• General Counsel 100 (GC100) published its response here.
• The Planning and Environment Bar Association response can found here.
• The Lawyers in Local Government response is available here.
• The Bar Council of Northern Ireland published its response here.
• The submission of the Law Society of Scotland is available here.
• The IRAL submission of the Law Society of Northern Ireland is available here.
• The IRAL submission of the UK Environmental Law Association is available here.
• The Public Law Solicitors Association response is available here.
• The IRAL response of the Western Circuit is available here.

Solicitors’ firms

• BDB Pitmans’s IRAL response is here.
• Bindmans published its response to IRAL here.
• Hogan Lovells’ IRAL submission is available here.
• DLA Piper’s response to IRAL is available here.
• The submission of Mishcon de Reya is available here.
• The submission of Herbert Smith Freehills (HSF) is available here. An audio summary of the submission is also available here.
• The submission of Kingsley Napley is available here.
• The response of Leigh Day is available here.
• Bevan Brittan’s IRAL submission is available here.
• The submission of Hodge, Jones & Allen is available here.
• The IRAL submission of Rook Irwin Sweeney LLP is available here.
• The IRAL response of Baker McKenzie is available here.
• The IRAL submission of Martin Wood, retired solicitor and tribunal chair, is available here.
• The IRAL submission of Bates Wells is available here.
• The IRAL submission of Harold Shupak, retired solicitor, is available here.
• The IRAL submission of Irwin Mitchell is available here.

Barristers’ chambers

• Matrix Chambers published its response to the IRAL.
• Doughty Street Chambers published its response to the IRAL.
• Goldsmith Chambers response to IRAL is available here.
• 11 King’s Bench Walk Chambers’ submission is available here.
• The IRAL submission of a group of barristers from Brick Court Chambers is available here.

Research organisations

• UKAJI’s response to the IRAL can be found here.
• The Administrative Justice Council (AJC) published its response to the IRAL
• The Public Law Project published its submission to the IRAL.
• Oxford Human Rights Hub published its response to the IRAL.
• British Institute of Human Rights published its response to the IRAL.
• The Committee on the Administration of Justice published its response to IRAL.
• Bonavero Institute for Human Rights published its IRAL submission here.
• The Public Law Wales response to IRAL is available here.
• The IRAL submission of the Judicial Power Project written by Prof Richard Ekins with a foreword by Lord Howard is available here.

Charities and civil society organisations

• The Hackney Community Law Centre’s IRAL response is here.
• JUSTICE published its IRAL response here.
• The Anti-Trafficking and Labour Exploitation Unit published its response here.
• The Public Interest Litigation Support project published its response here.
• The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants published its response here.
• The Helen Bamber Foundation published its response here.
• The submission of the Child Poverty Action Group is accessible here.
• Advocates for Animals has made its IRAL submission available here.
• Liberty’s response to the review can be found here.
• The IRAL submission of ClientEarth is available here.
• Article 39’s IRAL response is available here.
• Wildlife & Countryside Link’s IRAL submission is available here.
• The IRAL response of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is available here.
• The IRAL response of The Society of Labour Lawyers is available here.
• The IRAL submission of a group of charities and civil society organisations including Anti-Slavery International, Friends of the Earth EWNI, Compassion in World Farming, Quakers in Britain, The Ramblers, Reprieve, Shelter, The Sheila McKechnie Foundation, Unlock Democracy, and Weald Action group, is available here.
• The IRAL submission of Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland is available here.
• The Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers published its IRAL response here.
• The submission of the Centre for Military Justice is available here.

Academia and universities

• Paul Daly (University of Ottawa) published his response to the IRAL.
• Bangor Law School Public Law Research Group published its response to IRAL.
• The submission of Katie Boyle and Diana Camps (University of Stirling) is available here.
• The submission of Sir Jeffrey Jowell QC, Ivan Hare QC, Catherine Donnelly SC, and Lord Woolf of Barnes (authors of De Smith’s Judicial Review) is available here. A commentary on the submission by Professor Michael Zander can be found here.
• The submission of the Cambridge Centre for Public Law is available here.
• The IRAL response of Antonia Murillo (University of Sussex) is available here.
• The IRAL submission of Prof David Feldman QC is available here.

Public bodies

• The Joint Committee on Human Rights published a summary of its response via a letter to the Chair of IRAL, Lord Faulks QC.
• The Equality and Human Rights Commission published its IRAL response here.
• The Victims Commissioner published her office’s response to IRAL here.
• The submission of Robert Thomas CBE, former Chairman of the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council until its abolition in 2013, is available here.

Freedom of Information Act 2000 requests and responses:

• Dr Joe Tomlinson wrote to Lord Faulks asking if submissions made to IRAL would be disclosed by the panel. On 22 October 2020, Lord Faulks responded that this would be a question for the government.
• Dr Joe Tomlinson wrote to the Lord Chancellor asking if the government would disclose IRAL submissions on receipt of IRAL’s report. The Lord Chancellor responded on 21 December 2020 that it would be considered at that time.
• In response to a freedom of information request from Claire Hall (Child Poverty Action Group), HMRC answered on 30 November 2020 that they had not submitted a response to IRAL.
• On 9 November 2020, Dr Elizabeth O’Loughlin (Durham Law School) requested that all submissions received by IRAL should be disclosed by the Ministry of Justice. This was refused on the basis that it would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs, as IRAL was still considering responses and drafting its report.
• In response to a freedom of information request from Claire Hall (Child Poverty Action Group), the DWP answered that the exemption concerning prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs applies to its IRAL submission and that the Department would make a decision as to disclosure by 20 January 2021. On 13 January 2021, the Department refused the request.
• On 8 February, the Ministry of Justice acknowledged a freedom of information request from Robert Sharp asking for all submissions to be released, but refused this request on 2 March.
• Monidipa Fouzder (The Law Gazette) submitted a freedom of information request asking for the Ministry of Defence’s IRAL submission. However, on 22 January 2021 the request was refused on the basis that it would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs.
• Monidipa Fouzder (The Law Gazette) submitted a freedom of information request asking for the Home Office’s submission to IRAL. However, the request was refused on 5 January 2021 on the basis that it would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. On 9 February, the Home Office refused Fouzder’s appeal. The Home Office added that its IRAL submission also engaged the formulation and development of government policy exemption. This was because the Ministry of Justice required a ‘safe space’ to formulate policy given that it had now received IRAL’s report and recommendations.
• On 18 March, Robert Sharp made a request that the Ministry of Justice release the submissions of all public bodies following the publication of IRAL’s report. On 19 April, the Ministry of Justice refused Mr Sharp’s request on a number of basis.
• On 19 March, Claire Hall submitted a renewed request to the Department for Work and Pensions following the release of IRAL’s report. On 20 April, the Department refused this request.
• On 18 May 2021, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs refused a freedom of information request from ClientEarth for their IRAL submission.