Judicial Review: Irrationality and Proportionality

This set of vocabulary flashcards covers key concepts, case law, and legal tests related to irrationality and proportionality within the context of UK administrative law and judicial review.

Irrationality

The second substantive ground for judicial review, defined by Lord Diplock in the GCHQ case as a decision so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person could have arrived at it.

Wednesbury unreasonableness

A standard of review established in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd V Wednesbury Corporation [1948] referring to a conclusion so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it.

Judicial Deference

The practice where courts limit their jurisdiction to reviewing the legality of a decision rather than its merits to avoid a wrongful usurpation of executive power.

Merits-based review

An approach to review where the court evaluates the wisdom or substance of a public authority's decision, which judges typically avoid to maintain constitutional appropriateness.

Light scrutiny

An approach where courts are reluctant to quash a decision on the grounds of irrationality, particularly when the decision concerns the allocation of resources.

Proportionality

A ground for judicial review used in human rights cases to determine if a public authority lawfully infringed upon fundamental rights by showing the action was necessary and balanced.

Qualified rights

Rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), such as Art. 8 (right to privacy), that are not absolute and can be limited in certain situations like protecting the public from terrorism.

De Freitas test

A four-part test to determine if the qualification of a fundamental right is proportionate, involving legitimate aim, suitablity of the action, necessity, and fair balance.

Legitimate aim

The first criteria of the proportionality test, which asks if there was a valid justification for qualifying the rights of an individual.

Fair balance

The fourth stage of the proportionality test which assesses whether a balance has been struck between the rights of the individual affected and the wider public interest.

Quashing order

A judicial review remedy that nullifies or sets aside the illegal decision of a public authority.

Mandating order

A remedy that compels a public authority to perform a specific legal duty that it has failed to do.

Prohibiting order

A remedy that prevents a public authority from making a specific decision or taking an action that would be unlawful.

Declaration

A remedy where the court issues a formal statement defining the legal rights of the parties or the legal position of a matter without necessarily ordering further action.

Injunction

A remedy that either requires a party to take a specific action or, more commonly, forbids them from doing something.

Devon County Council v George [1989]

A case where the House of Lords held that withdrawing free transport for a child living $2.9\,\text{miles}$ from school (where the statutory limit was $3\,\text{miles}$) was not unreasonable.

R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001]

A case where a blanket policy allowing prison officers to search legal correspondence in the absence of prisoners was held to be not proportionate as it went further than strictly necessary.