Legislative and Judicial Scrutiny of the Emergency Response to the Pandemic in the UK: Stubborn Accountability Gaps.

The article examines the challenges of legal and political accountability in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on legislative scrutiny and judicial review. It highlights how emergency conditions led to weakened parliamentary oversight, partly due to government decisions such as rushed legislation and extensive use of delegated powers under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 and the Coronavirus Act 2020. The analysis emphasizes the temporal dimension of the pandemic, distinguishing between the initial emergency response—where limited scrutiny was understandable—and the later crisis management phase, where greater parliamentary engagement was possible but often unrealized. Regarding judicial review, the courts generally adopted a deferential stance, with most legal challenges becoming academic due to the fast-changing regulations, though the "second-look" function of judicial review—where the threat of litigation influenced government decisions—played a notable role. The article concludes by calling for reforms to strengthen constitutional safeguards and improve accountability in future public health emergencies.