90 likes | 344 Views
Judicial Review 1. Introduction and Scope of Lectures Concerned with control of exercise of discretionary powers by public bodies N.B. the distinction between appeal and review -- see Brightman LJ in Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans [1982] 1 WLR 1155, 1174.
E N D
Judicial Review 1 • Introduction and Scope of Lectures • Concerned with control of exercise of discretionary powers by public bodies • N.B. the distinction between appeal and review -- see Brightman LJ in Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans [1982] 1 WLR 1155, 1174. • Since C.C.S.U. v. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 prerogative powers have also been reviewable.
Judicial Review 1 • Procedure and Remedies • This is governed by CPR PD54 (Judicial Review) 2000. • Remedies available are : • Quashing Order (certiorari), Prohibiting Order (prohibition) • Mandatory Order (mandamus), injunction • Declaration, damages.
Judicial Review 1 • Note • 1. Time Limits • 2. The process involves two stages : permission and full hearing. What is the purpose of the permission stage? • 3. All remedies are discretionary – see R v. Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal ex p Caswell [1990] 2 All ER 434. • 4. Case citations – R (A) v. B or R v. B ex p A.
Judicial Review 1 • Who is susceptible to judicial review? • Standing or Locus Standi • ‘Sufficient Interest.’ • Note that this must be a legal interest. • If the claim is made under the HRA 1998, then the applicant must be a victim – s.7(3) HRA 1998
Judicial Review 1 • Pressure Groups and Standing • See R v. IRC ex parte National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd. [1982] AC 617 • R v. Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Rose Theatre Trust [1990] 1 QB 504 • R v. Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ex parte World Development Movement [1995] 1 All ER 611
Judicial Review 1 • Is the test for Standing too Restrictive? • Note the limitations on the effect of remedies in judicial review. • GROUNDS FOR REVIEW • These were set out by Lord Diplock in C.C.S.U. v. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 • These grounds are now the accepted norm.
Judicial Review 1 • C.C.S.U. v. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 • FACTS • Divisional Court’s Decision • Mrs Thatcher trumps the Union in the Court of Appeal • The House of Lords settle the issue.
Judicial Review 1 • In CCSU, Lord Diplock identified three grounds of review and added that a fourth might come into play in the future. The grounds are: • 1. Illegality • 2. Irrationality • 3. Procedural Impropriety • (4. Proportionality)