grounds for judicial review (again)

Judicial Review Grounds

Overview

  • The professor outlines the key areas of focus for the final exam in administrative law:

    • Jurisdictional questions regarding public bodies.

    • Grounds for judicial review (three main grounds).

Jurisdictional Questions

  • Understanding what constitutes a public body is essential.

  • Students will encounter IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) style questions.

  • Mock answers are available on Moodle showing examples of public bodies and non-public bodies.

Summary: Judicial Review Grounds

This section introduces the two main areas for the administrative law final exam: understanding what a public body is and the three grounds for judicial review. Students are encouraged to practice with IRAC-style questions and mock answers available on Moodle for jurisdictional issues.

Grounds for Judicial Review

  • Students need to learn:

    • Three grounds for judicial review.

    • The definitions of each ground.

    • The case associated with each ground.

Ground 1: Illegality

  • Definition: When a public body acts outside the powers granted to it by law.

  • Explanation:

    • Public bodies must operate within their legal boundaries; exceeding powers is deemed illegal.

    • Example provided: A minister can cancel licenses only after accumulating 10 points but attempts to cancel after 5 points—this is acting illegally.

  • Case: The Anisminic case, concerning a company that lost mining rights in Egypt and sought compensation from the British government. The decision was deemed outside the powers of the compensation commissioner due to it not being an official decision as interpreted by the courts.

Summary: Illegality

In simple terms, illegality occurs when a public body does something it isn't legally allowed to do, like acting beyond its granted authority. The Anisminic case is a key example.

Ground 2: Procedural Impropriety

  • Definition: Refers to the failure to follow correct legal procedures prior to making a decision.

  • Explanation:

    • Focuses on the input and processes leading to the decision rather than outcomes.

    • There are two categories of procedures:

    • Common Law: Developed by courts to ensure natural justice, requiring fair hearings and unbiased processes.

    • Statutory Rules: Specific procedures mandated by legislative statutes.

    • Example: If a statute requires a 30-day notice before a license cancellation and this notice is not provided, it constitutes procedural impropriety.

  • Case: Ridge v. Baldwin.

    • Involved a chief constable dismissed without the chance to present a defense despite being acquitted of criminal charges. This was ruled as procedural impropriety as proper procedures were not followed.

Summary: Procedural Impropriety

Procedural impropriety means failing to follow the correct steps or rules before making a decision, whether those rules come from court principles (like natural justice) or specific laws. The Ridge v. Baldwin case highlights the importance of fair procedure.

Ground 3: Irrationality

  • Definition: Decisions made that are so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made them.

  • Explanation:

    • This is the hardest ground to prove in court, with most cases relying on illegality or procedural impropriety instead.

    • The test for irrationality is termed the Wednesbury Test.

    • Example of unreasonable decision: A local council regulation banning children under 15 in cinemas on Sundays, challenged but upheld because it was not deemed irrational despite its oddity.

  • Case: Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation.

    • Established the test for proving irrationality in judicial review.

Summary: Irrationality

Irrationality refers to decisions so extremely unreasonable that no sensible authority would make them. This is a very high bar to meet, defined by the Wednesbury Test from the Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation case.

Conclusion of Instruction

  • The three grounds of judicial review:

    • Illegality (case: Anisminic).

    • Procedural Impropriety (case: Ridge v. Baldwin).

    • Irrationality (case: Wednesbury).

  • Important for final exam preparation.

  • Final exam scheduled for December 17, 4-6 PM.

  • Students should review mock exam questions provided on Moodle and simplified slides for ease of understanding.