What is the outcome of judicial review if a government action is found unlawful?

Judicial review serves a critical function in ensuring that government actions comply with the law. When a court finds that a government action is unlawful, the appropriate outcome is to set aside or void that action. This means that the action is no longer recognized as valid, effectively nullifying any legal effects it may have had.

The purpose of judicial review is to provide a check on the powers of the government and ensure accountability. If a government action is deemed unlawful, it signifies a failure to adhere to legal standards, and thus, the court's role is to restore legality by annulling that action. This ensures that the principles of rule of law are upheld, and individuals affected by the unlawful action may seek appropriate remedies or relief.

In contrast, affirming the action as valid would contradict the finding of unlawful conduct. Referring the matter for retrial might apply in contexts where there was a procedural irregularity in a different set of circumstances, but in the context of judicial review, the focus is on the legality of the action at hand. Escalating the decision to a higher court does not apply as the review itself typically occurs at an appellate level based on the legality of the action rather than a direct appeal from an initial decision.