Holding human research ethics committees to account: A role for judicial review?

Decision-making by Human Research Ethics Committees ('HRECs') is subject to significant criticisms, many of which relate to the extent to which decisions are made within their authority or to the provision of reasons for such decisions. This suggests that judicial review of decisions made by HRECs may contribute to improving adherence to administrative law norms and the quality of decision-making processes. This article assesses this proposition by examining current opportunities for review and then assessing the extent to which expanding the role of judicial review might better hold HRECs to account. It argues that only some types of HREC decisions are currently open to judicial review, and that the purported benefits of enhanced decision-making processes arising from judicial review are less than the risks of impairment to efficient administration. Alternative mechanisms are suggested. Decisions that are neither clearly within or outside the scope of judicial review provide useful case studies for interrogating both the purpose of judicial review and the extent to which it achieves its aims.