1 / 9

Judicial Review 3

Judicial Review 3. (III) PROCEDURAL IMPROPRIETY Divided into two categories; (a) Breach of Express Statutory Requirements (b) Breach of Fair Procedure Note limits of the Court’s role here (nb Ward v. Bradford Corporation (1971) 70 LGR 27.). Judicial Review 3.

jeremy-good
Download Presentation

Judicial Review 3

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Judicial Review 3 • (III) PROCEDURAL IMPROPRIETY • Divided into two categories; • (a) Breach of Express Statutory Requirements • (b) Breach of Fair Procedure • Note limits of the Court’s role here (nb Ward v. Bradford Corporation (1971) 70 LGR 27.)

  2. Judicial Review 3 • (a) Breach of Express Statutory Requirements • Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board v. Aylesbury Mushrooms [1972] 1 All ER 280. • R v. Brent LBC ex p Gunning (1985) 84 LGR 168. • R v. S of S for Social Services ex p AMA [1986] 1 All ER 164 • Consequences of failure to comply??

  3. Judicial Review 3 • (b) Breach of Fair Procedure • Two sub-categories • (i) The Rule Against Bias • NB : R v. Sussex Justices ex p McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256, 259 per Lord Hewart CJ: • "It is not merely of some importance but of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."

  4. Judicial Review 3 • NB no actual bias need be shown. • R v. Gough [1993] 2 All ER 724. • R v. Inner West London Coroner ex p Dallaglio [1994] 4 All ER 139. • R v. Bow Street Stipendiary Magistrate and ors ex p Pinochet Ugarte [1999] 1 All ER 577 • Locobail (UK) Ltd v. Bayfield Properties Ltd (2000) QB 451

  5. Judicial Review 3 • (ii) The Right to a Fair Hearing • Ridge v. Baldwin [1964] AC 40 • What is a fair hearing? • The person must know the case against him - Kanda v. Government of Malaya [1962] AC 322. • He must have sufficient time to prepare his own case - R v. Thames Magistrates' Court ex p Polemis [1974] 1 WLR 1371

  6. Judicial Review 3 • Exceptions to this rule: • Public Interest : R v. Gaming Board for Great Britain ex p Benaim and Khaida [1970] 2 All ER 528. • National Security : R v. S of S for the Home Department ex p Hosenball [1977] 3 All ER 452, R v. S of S for the Home Department ex p Cheblak [1991] 2 All ER 319. • Note the difference between the exceptions.

  7. Judicial Review 3 • Should the person be legally represented? - Pitt v. Greyhound Association of Great Britain [1968] 2 All ER 545, R v. S of S for the Home Department ex p Tarrant [1985] QB 251. • Should the Public Body be required to give reasons for its decision? Payne v. Harris [1982] 2 All ER 842., R v. Civil Service Appeal Board ex p Cunningham [1991] 4 All ER 310,Doody v. S of S for the Home Department [1993] 3 All ER 92 • Why shouldn’t public bodies give reasons for their decisions?

  8. Judicial Review 3 • PROPORTIONALITY • R v. S of S for the Home Department ex p Brind [1991] 1 All ER 720 • R v. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council ex p Hook [1976] 1 WLR 102. • See now The effect of the Human Rights Act 1998.

  9. Judicial Review 3 • The Human Rights Act 1998 • R v. S of S for the Home Department ex p Daly [2001] UKHL 26 • Conclusion.

More Related