Certiorari is a court process to seek judicial review of a decision of a lower court or administrative agency. Certiorari comes from the name of an English prerogative writ, issued by a superior court to direct that the record of the lower court be sent to the superior court for review. The term is Latin for "to be made certain", and comes from the opening line of such writs, which traditionally began with the Latin words "Certiorari volumus...".
The Appellate Divisions of the Supreme Court of the State of New York are the intermediate appellate courts in New York State. There are four Appellate Divisions, one in each of the state's four Judicial Departments.
The Supreme Court of Ireland is the highest judicial authority in Ireland. It is a court of final appeal and exercises, in conjunction with the Court of Appeal and the High Court, judicial review over Acts of the Oireachtas. The Supreme Court also has jurisdiction to ensure compliance with the Constitution of Ireland by governmental bodies and private citizens. It sits in the Four Courts in Dublin.
The Courts of Ireland consist of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the High Court, the Circuit Court, the District Court and the Special Criminal Court. With the exception of the Special Criminal Court, all courts exercise both civil and criminal jurisdiction, although when the High Court is exercising its criminal jurisdiction it is known as the Central Criminal Court.
The judiciary of Australia comprises judges who sit in federal courts and courts of the States and Territories of Australia. The High Court of Australia sits at the apex of the Australian court hierarchy as the ultimate court of appeal on matters of both federal and State law.
The Supreme Court of Finland, located in Helsinki, is the court of last resort for cases within the private law of Finland. The Court's counterpart is the Supreme Administrative Court, which is the court of last resort for cases within the administrative law.
The supreme court is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts in many legal jurisdictions. Other descriptions for such courts include court of last resort, apex court, and highcourt of appeal. Broadly speaking, the decisions of a supreme court are not subject to further review by any other court. Supreme courts typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from decisions of lower trial courts, or from intermediate-level appellate courts.
Judicial review in Hong Kong is conducted according to the Constitutional and Administrative Law List. It comprises two different aspects: firstly, judicial review of domestic legislation as to their compatibility with the Basic Law ; secondly, judicial review of administrative decisions under administrative law.
Threshold issues are legal requirements in Singapore administrative law that must be satisfied by applicants before their claims for judicial review of acts or decisions of public authorities can be dealt with by the High Court. These include showing that they have standing to bring cases, and that the matters are amenable to judicial review and justiciable by the Court.
The Judiciary of California is defined under the California Constitution, law, and regulations as part of the Government of California. The judiciary has a hierarchical structure with the Supreme Court at the apex, California courts of appeal as the primary appellate courts, and the California superior courts as the primary trial courts. Its administration is effected by the Judicial Council and its staff, as well as the relatively autonomous courts. California uses a modified Missouri Plan method of appointing judges, whereby judges are nominally elected at the superior court level and appointed at higher levels, and are subject to retention elections.
The Judiciary of Kenya is the system of courts that interprets and applies the law in Kenya. After the promulgation of the constitution of Kenya in 2010, the general public, through parliament, sought to reform the judiciary. Parliament passed the Magistrates and Judges Vetting Act of 2011. A major part of reforming the judiciary was the vetting of Magistrates and Judges in an attempt to weed out unsuitable ones. The Judicature Act has also been amended to raise the minimum number of Magistrates and Judges allowing more judicial officers to be hired. More magistrates and judges are needed to clear the backlog of cases that have caused great delay in the conclusion of cases and to staff new courts. New courts are needed to bring the courts closer to the people which is in line with devolution, a major principle written into the Constitution of 2010. New courts like the High Court opened in Garissa in November 2014 is a good example. In the past residents of North Eastern Kenya had to go all the way to Embu to access a High Court.
In Canada, judicial review is the process that allows courts to supervise administrative tribunals' exercise of their statutory powers. Judicial review of administrative action is only available for decisions made by a governmental or quasi-governmental authority. The process allows individuals to challenge state actions, and ensures that decisions made by administrative tribunals follow the rule of law. The practice is meant to ensure that powers delegated by government to boards and tribunals are not abused, and offers legal recourse when that power is misused, or the law is misapplied. Judicial review is meant to be a last resort for those seeking to redress a decision of an administrative decision maker.
Adam v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38 is a reported decision of the Irish Supreme Court, in which the Court, in affirming High Court orders to strike out two judicial review proceedings as frivolous, held that, to challenge the decision of a public authority, one must attempt to rely on proved individual circumstances.
De Roiste v Minister for Defence, [2001] 1 IR190, [2001] IESC 4; [2001] 2 ILRM 241, was a Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the extended delay in bringing forward an action was grounds for dismissal of charges.
McFarlane v. Director of Public Prosecutions[2008] IESC 7; [2008] 2 I.R. 117 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the right to a fair trial under both Article 38.1 of the Constitution and Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights does not preclude prosecution in cases of prosecutorial delay unless the accused can demonstrate either that some specific prejudice resulted or that the delay was well outside the norm for the particular proceedings.
Grace and anor v An Bórd Pleanála & ors [2017] IESC 10 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the criteria for ''standing'' in relation to judicial review of environmental concerns.
Wansboro v. DPP and anor, [2017] IESCDET 115 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that granting 'leapfrog' leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court from the High Court under Art. 34.5.4 of the Constitution of Ireland may be appropriate where the (intermediate) Court of Appeal has already clearly taken a view on the issues raised by the applicant.
AAA & Anor v Minister for Justice & Ors, [2017] IESC 80, was a Irish Supreme Court case which arose from the judgment delivered by Cooke J in the High Court on 17 May 2012, due to the fact that the applicant AAA and her children were deported to Nigeria in 2011. The court held that "as a rule" there is no right to an oral hearing in an application for leave to remain on humanitarian grounds and subsidiary protection where there has already been oral hearings in relation to an application for asylum. This decision clarified the grounds under which a claim for subsidiary protection could be heard.
Z. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform[2002] IESC 14, [2002]; 2 ILRM 215 is an Irish Supreme Court case where the Court ruled that the absence of an oral hearing need not infringe the right of an applicant for refugee status to natural and constitutional justice.
CC v Minister for Justice [2016] 2 IR 680; [2016] IESC 48 is a Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court dismissed an appeal by the State to issue a deportation order against a Malawian family who were seeking asylum in Ireland. In this case, the Court had to reexamine a previously established test with respect to whether an order for deportation could be granted where an appeal was pending within the courts system. Ultimately, the Court decided that there was no need for refinements as the general principle identified in that test can be applied across a wide number of cases.
