Explain the remedies that might be granted by the high court in the enforcement of the fundamental rights and freedoms
A mandatory order requires the defendant in judicial review proceedings to do something, namely, to carry out the duty that it is obliged to execute by law. An example of where a mandatory order may be an appropriate remedy, is if the claim is grounded on the assertion that a court has wrongly declared that it has no jurisdiction and therefore fails to consider a particular matter. Under these circumstances, if a mandatory order is given, the court in question, by virtue of the order, is compelled to make the decision it failed to make in the first place.
A prohibiting order prevents a public body or court from acting beyond its powers in the future. Prohibiting orders are particularly useful as they may be sought to prevent a decision being made in excess of jurisdiction, even if there is a right to appeal the decision.
Injunctions are often sought as interim relief in judicial review proceedings. There are various types of injunctions, but in essence, injunctions can either compel a party to do something or prohibit a party from doing something.
Declarations are statements in which a High Court judge clarifies the law through stating the law as an order. They are central to the purpose of judicial review, since judicial review in itself aims to ensure that decisions are made lawfully. Declarations help decision makers make lawful decisions because they often provide much needed clarification on matters of law.
Declarations of Incompatibility
The Administrative Court may now make a declaration of incompatibility. Such a declaration however, can only be made after the court has attempted to read the primary legislation in a way that is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights