JR Cases, Illegality

Question 1

R v Home Secretary, ex part Venebles (1998)

Answer 1

Error of Law
• Determined that home secretary had mis-directed himself in law
• Had power to set “tariffs” for two young murderers -> reacted to public pressure rather than acting according to statute

Question 2

Young v Fife Regional Council (1986)

Answer 2

Unlawful delegation

o Committee tasked with decision could not rely on subcommittee

Question 3

Ellis v Dubowski (1921)

Answer 3

Unlawful delegation

o local authority could not have BBFC deciding on cinema

Question 4

Rooney v Chief Constable, Strathclyde (1997)

Answer 4

Unlawful delegation

whether there may be sub-delegation depends upon the wording of the statute in question and there are circumstances where it could be held to permit sub-delegation

Question 5

Carltona Ltd v Commissioners of Works (1943)

Answer 5

Unlawful delegation
• Officials are taken to be the “altar ego” of their Ministers
• Thus, powers and duties conferred to a Minister, may be properly exercised by officials for whom Minister is responsible to parliament
o Civil servants can exercise lawfully ministerial power
• Equivalent case in Scotland: Somerville v The Scottish Ministers 2007 SC 140

Question 6

Sagnata Investments Ltd v Norwich Corporation (1971)

Answer 6

Unlawful fettering
• cannot adopt a policy that certain applications will always be refused, here in relation to the blanket ban on amusement arcades in Norwich

Question 7

R v Home Secretary, ex Parte P and Q (2001)

Answer 7

Unlawful fettering

• a body can adopt a general policy that it will apply in the absence of any exceptional circumstances

Question 8

Miss Behavin’ Ltd v Belfast CC (2007)

Answer 8

Unlawful fettering

In certain circumstances, the adoption of a binding rule can be justified
• When it’s in the public interest

Question 9

R v North & East Devon Health Authority ex parte Coughlan (2001)

Answer 9

Unlawful fettering
• Health authority promised the applicant that she would have a “home for life”
• Was this unlawful fetter on future exercise of discretionary powers?
o Held: NO, as this gave rise to a legitimate expectation that the authority would keep their word absent an “overreaching justification for [not] doing so”
• High threshold test: Has there been a frustration on expectations so large that changing the course of action could amount to an abuse of power?
o This leads to public authorities no longer making promises…

Question 10

Congreve v Home Office (1976)

Answer 10

Improper purposes
• Appellant bought TV license for £12, right after Minister announced that fee would soon go up to £18
• Home office wrote to people who bought for £12, said if they didn’t pay the difference their TV license would be revoked
• Court found that this was an abuse of minister’s discretionary power

Question 11

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex party Venebales (1998)

Answer 11

Relevance
• (Jamie Bulger case)
• Home secretary took account of irrelevant considerations, i.e. public petitions re length of detention for the two young murderers
• Trial judge had recommended 8 years
o Public felt it was too short
• Another judge recommended 10 years
• Home secretary had power to exercise his own discretion, said 15 years after having taken into account public opinion
• HoL said this was unlawful -> Home Secretary should have only taken into account assessments relevant to child’s welfare
• ECHR later said it was unlawful for Home Secretary to set tariff at all