![AC-2025-LON-002122 - [2025] EWHC 2013 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png){kind=logo}
The test to be applied in assessing whether an alternative remedy is adequate
The test to be applied in assessing whether an alternative remedy is adequate
The authorities cited by Sir James make clear that the suitability of an alternative remedy depends on whether the remedy is “conveniently and effectively available”: see Watch Tower, at [19]. The authorities make clear that the application of this test depends not only on the statutory context, but also on the circumstances of the individual case. Sir James for the Home Secretary did not demur and indeed accepted that, in a case where the illegality of a proscription order was clear, judicial review may well be appropriate.
There are five factors that seem to me to be relevant. I consider them in turn, and cumulatively, before considering the impact of the judgment of Richards J in the Kurdistan Workers’ Party case.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Background
- Further evidence
- Preliminary issue
- The alternative remedy point
- Discussion
- The test to be applied in assessing whether an alternative remedy is adequate
- Factor (1): Timing
- Factor (2): The nature of the detriment
- Factor (3): Criminal cases
- Factor (4): Forum and procedure
- Factor (5): Would the availability of judicial review render the deproscription/POAC route a dead letter?
- The Kurdistan Workers’ Party case
- Conclusion
- The claimant’s grounds of challenge
- Ground 2
- Ground 1
- Ground 3
- Ground 4
- Ground 5
- Ground 6
- Ground 7
- Ground 8
- Conclusions