Judicial Review

Página 1

General Points on Judicial review

CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 - Sets out grounds for review

Concerned with control of exercise of discretionary powers by public bodies

Distinguishable from appeal because it reviews procedure rather than the merits of the decision - Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v Evans [1982] 1 WLR 1155

Prerogative powers are reviewable under judicial review - CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374

Procedure

3 month time limit commerncing after internal appeals

Two stages of review: Permission and full hearing

All remedies are discretionary - R v Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal ex p Caswell [1990] 2 All ER 434

Remedies

Governed by CPR PD54 (Judicial review) 2000

Quashing order - Nullifies decision

Prohibiting order - Prohibited from function in the future

Mandatory order - Orders body to act in specific way

Injunction - Temporary prohibition from function

Declaration - States what the law is

Damages - Generally used only for human rights violations

Public bodies

Body performing governmental functions - R v Panel on Takeovers and Mergers, ex parte Datafin (1987)

R v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex parte Aga Khan (1993) - Lloyd's was declared not to be a public body

Must have Locus StandiMust have legal interest (usually must be victim)

Can pressure groups bring actions?

Originally no as no sufficient interest - R v IRC ex parte National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617, R v Secretry of State for the Environment ex parte Rose Theatre Trust [1990] 1 QB 504

But sufficient interest can arise where those affected can't apply themselves and the group is representing those affected - R v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ex parte World Development Movement [1995] 1 All ER 611

Exclusion of judicial reviewComplete ouster clauses are ineffective - Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission (1969)

Illegality (Ultra vires) - "The decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it" - Must understand limits of power

'Fairly incidental' rule - Additional things done which must be for the purpose the power was meant to be used for

Barnard v NDLB [1953] 1 All ER 1113 - Delegates cannot delegate power unless said so in the act

British Oxygen v Board of Trade [1971] AC 610 - Discretion must be exercised in each individual case - policies must be flexible

Improper Purpose

Padfield v MAFF [1968] AC 997 - Minister must consider purpose and context of statute

Wheeler v Leicester City Council [1985] 2 All ER 1106 - South African rugby players not allowedto visit home due to apartheid

Irrelevant Considerations

Port Talbot Council ex p Jones [1988] 2 All ER 207 - Woman moved up housing list because she was a councillor

Irrationality (Wednesday unreasonableness)

Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 - "A decision which is so outrageous in it's defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it"

Least successful ground of challenge

Bow Street Metropolitcan Magistrate ex p DPP [1992] COD 267 - Police officers setting up individuals not convicted

Procedural Impropriety (Acting unfairly)

Breach of Express Statutory Requirements

Aylesbury Mushrooms [1972] 1 All ER 280 - Specific party left out of consultation which was required by statute - ruled that policy should remain in force but not apply to specific party who wasn't involved

R v Brent LBC ex p Gunning (1985) 84 LGR 168 - No statutory duty but nevertheless the courts implied a requirement to consult parents when closing schools

R v Secretary of State for Social Services ex p AMA [1986] 1 All ER 164 - Statutory requirement to consult not fulfilled - Declaration of the law as remedy

Breach of Fair Procedure - Rules of Natural Justice

The Rule Against Bias

R v Sussex Justices ex p McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256 - Lord Hewart CJ: "It is not merely of some importance but of fundemental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done"

No actual bias need be shown

Current law: Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67 - Lord Hope: "Question is whether the fair minded and informed observer, having considered the facts would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased"

Old law: Gough [1993] 2 All ER 724 - Must be a perceived danger of bias to the reasonable person

Bow Street Stipendiary Magistrate and ors ex p Pinochet Ugarte [1999] 1 All ER 577 - Apprehended bias due to judge being president of pressure group

The Right to a Fair Hearing

Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40 - First use when a Chief Constable was fired without a chance to defend himself

Kanda v Government of Malaya [1962] AC 322 - The person must know the nature of the case against him

R v Thames Magistrates' Court ex p Polemis [1974] 1 WLR 1371 - He must have sufficient time to prepare his own case

Legitimate Expectation

R v Devon County Council ex parte Baker [1995] 1 All ER 73 - Simon Brown LJ: Must be a clear and unambiguous representation that it will adopt a particular form of procedure, claimant must have an interest in a benefit that it hopes to attain or retain, where the decision maker has a substantive right on which it was reasonable forthe claimant to rely

Only recorded use in R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan [2001] QB 213

Procedure and Remedies

Who is susceptible?

Illegality(Ultra Vires) and Irrationality(Unreasonableness)

Procedural Impropriety(Acting Unfairly)