I've noticed that most human rights claims are brought via Judicial review, but I cannot see what the benefit is by doing so.
For instance, there were proceedings concerning a harassment warning that was issued unfairly to a woman who was alleged to have harassed her neighbour with one comment. She complained and then appealed to the police against the warning but to no avail. She then brought a judicial review against the decision under section 6 of the HRA in respect of her article 8 rights not to delete the warning, which was partly successful.
But suppose more than 3 months had elapsed since her appeal. She wouldn't have been able to apply for judicial review, so would there have been anything at all preventing her from just making a human rights claim in the county court. In fact, why not do that in the first place without even wasting time appealing to the police?
Not only do you have an extra 9 months to make a human rights claim, you can do so in the county court, unlike with JR which will only be heard in the High Court. Also, you have to have exhausted all statutory channels of appeal before a JR will be considered, but that is not so with the Human Rights Act.
I cannot see how JR would offer any greater remedy than that of a straightforward human rights claim either. So again, why opt for judicial review over a straightforward human rights claim?