Which of the following statements accurately distinguishes judicial review from an appeal against a public body decision?

• A. Judicial review challenges the legality or procedure, whereas an appeal reviews the merits of the decision.
• B. Judicial review reviews the merits of the decision, whereas an appeal challenges legality or procedure.
• C. Judicial review is only available for private bodies, while appeals apply to public bodies.
• D. Judicial review and appeals have identical remedies.

Answer: (A)

The key idea is that judicial review checks how a decision was made rather than what the decision actually decides. It looks at legality and procedure: was the decision made within the proper powers (illegal or ultra vires), was it reached following fair and legal process (procedural impropriety or bias), and was the reasoning irrational. It does not reweigh evidence or substitute the court’s view of what outcome should have been; if the decision was lawful and properly made, judicial review won’t override it. The remedies focus on correcting or resetting the process—quashing the decision, prohibiting a course of action, mandating reconsideration, or issuing a declaration or injunction as appropriate.

An appeal, by contrast, challenges the merits of the decision itself. It asks whether the decision is the right or reasonable answer on the facts and law, and it can lead to substitution of the decision with an alternative if permitted by the appeal route. So, when a public body has acted within its legal powers but there is a dispute about the outcome, an appeal is the route that reviews substantive correctness, whereas judicial review focuses on legality and process rather than substituting a different outcome.

The other statements don’t fit because one says judicial review examines merits and appeals legality, which is the reverse; another says judicial review is only for private bodies, which is not correct in practice; and another claims remedies are identical, which they are not.