Grounds: Irrationality Flashcards
(10 cards)
What is the test for irrationality established in Wednesbury [1948]?
A. A decision must be so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it
B. A decision must violate a fundamental right
C. A decision must contradict policy
D. A decision must be politically unpopular
A. A decision must be so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it
Explanation: Wednesbury sets a high threshold: courts only intervene if the decision is outrageously defiant of logic.
Which case involved the government’s refusal to broadcast certain voices and was found not to be irrational?
A. Anisminic v FCC
B. British Oxygen
C. Keyu v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
D. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Brind [1991]
D. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Brind [1991]
Explanation: The court upheld the Home Secretary’s decision, showing the deferential approach under irrationality.
Why is the irrationality ground used sparingly by courts?
A. Because it is incompatible with the HRA 1998
B. To respect the expertise and discretion of public authorities
C. Because it always results in damages
D. Because it is only available in criminal law
B. To respect the expertise and discretion of public authorities
Explanation: Courts are cautious not to substitute their own judgment where the authority is acting within its lawful discretion.
A local authority issues fines of £10,000 for minor littering offences with no justification. Which ground is likely engaged?
A. Irrationality – manifest disproportionality
B. Procedural impropriety
C. Legitimate expectation
D. Ultra vires
A. Irrationality – manifest disproportionality
Explanation: An unjustifiably extreme or absurd outcome, such as an excessive fine, may meet the irrationality threshold.
A council’s funding decision is authorised by statute and ratified by Parliament. When will courts intervene?
A. If the decision was economically unsound
B. Only if it involves bad faith or is manifestly absurd
C. If it results in inequality
D. If there’s public protest
B. Only if it involves bad faith or is manifestly absurd
Explanation: In Nottinghamshire CC [1986], the court set a very high bar for intervention in budgetary matters.
What is the relationship between irrationality and proportionality?
A. They are identical tests
B. Irrationality is used in all rights-based cases
C. Proportionality replaces irrationality in all JR cases
D. Proportionality is a separate, more structured test used mainly in HRA cases
D. Proportionality is a separate, more structured test used mainly in HRA cases
Explanation: Proportionality is preferred where Convention rights are involved, offering more detailed judicial scrutiny.
In Wednesbury, what was the local authority’s decision regarding Sunday cinema access?
A. To prohibit children under 15 from attending cinemas on Sundays
B. To subsidise cinema tickets for the elderly
C. To close cinemas on religious holidays
D. To promote religious films only
A. To prohibit children under 15 from attending cinemas on Sundays
Explanation: This decision was not found to be irrational, setting the benchmark for reasonableness.
Why has irrationality been criticised as a ground for review?
A. It leads to excessive intervention
B. It is overly deferential and rarely successful
C. It removes the role of ministers
D. It applies only in EU law cases
B. It is overly deferential and rarely successful
Explanation: Critics argue the threshold is too high, limiting protection unless proportionality is applied instead.
Which of the following would be the best example of an irrational decision?
A. A late notice being served
B. A refusal to hear objections
C. A punishment grossly disproportionate to the offence, without justification
D. A vague statement by a minister
C. A punishment grossly disproportionate to the offence, without justification
Explanation: Extreme disproportionality may cross into Wednesbury irrationality, especially without supporting reasoning.
What was the issue in Keyu v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs [2015]?
A. Environmental permits
B. Immigration detention
C. Whether proportionality should replace irrationality in public law generally
D. Misuse of budgetary funds
C. Whether proportionality should replace irrationality in public law generally
Explanation: The court declined to replace irrationality, reserving proportionality for human rights and EU law contexts.
