Illegality

Question 1

GCHQ

Answer 1

The decision maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision making power and give effect to it (Diplock)

Question 2

AG v Fulham Corporation

Answer 2

Ultra vires - ‘outside the four corners of the Act’

Question 3

Westminster Corporation v L&NW Railway

Answer 3

Implied statutory authority if action is necessary or consequential to the exercise of statutory authority

Question 4

Ex parte Leech

Answer 4

Interference with a constitutional fundamental right has to be expressly and unambiguously stated in the statute

Question 5

Ex parte Simms

Answer 5

Interference with freedom of expression has to be unambiguously expressed by Statute

Question 6

Ex parte Witham

Answer 6

Interference with access to justice has to be unambiguously expressed by Statute

Question 7

Anufrijeva

Answer 7

Interpretation of Statute to give effect to fundamental rights - could only end entitlement once claimant was informed of decisions

Question 8

Ahmed

Answer 8

Freezing assets not authorised in the United Nations Act

Question 9

Anisminic

Answer 9

Error of law - incorrectly interpreted compensation scheme it was administering

Question 10

Ex parte Page

Answer 10

All errors of law are theoretically reviewable

Courts will not intervene if special system of private rules

Question 11

Ex p South Yorkshire Transport

Answer 11

Will not review decisions if power is capable of broad interpretation, only if irrational

Question 12

White & Collins

Answer 12

Failed to establish precedent fact - park land was not subject to CPO

Question 13

Ex p. Khawaja

Answer 13

Must determine illegality of entrance before detention

Question 14

Coleen Properties

Answer 14

No factual basis for clearing order decided on basis

Question 15

Mahon v Air New Zealand

Answer 15

Finding of fact must be based upon some material that tends logically to show the existence of facts consistent with the finding

Question 16

Tameside MBC

Answer 16

Obiter - mistake of established fact could be judicially reviewed

Question 17

CICB, ex parte A

Answer 17

Mistake as to established fact was judicially reviewable

Question 18

E v SoS Home Department

Answer 18

1) Mistake as to existing fact
2) Fact must be established
3) Applicant not responsible for mistake
4) Mistake need not play a decisive role, just material role

Question 19

Ex parte Fewings

Answer 19

Improper purpose - morality not purpose of statute
Three types of considerations
1) Mandatory - must be taken into account
2) Prohibitory - must not be taken into account
3) Discretionary - must be exercised lawfully
Must have regard to all relevant considerations (including discretionary)

Question 20

Roberts v Hopwood

Answer 20

Poplar BC had not considered views of rate payers in increasing minimum wage

Question 21

Ex parte Barry

Answer 21

Local authority’s consideration of their own resources was a relevant factor

Question 22

CICB ex parte P

Answer 22

Court is ill-equipped to deal with competing claims on public purse

Question 23

Ex parte Tandy

Answer 23

Resources will not always be considered relevant - overlap with unreasonableness (weighting of considerations)

Question 24

Bromley LBC v GLC

Answer 24

Increase in rates was an irrelevant consideration

Question 25

Ex parte Venables and Thompson

Answer 25

Public revulsion was an irrelevant consideration

HS needed to act judiciously - needed to consider potential for rehabilitation

Question 26

Padfield v Minister for Agriculture

Answer 26

Improper purpose - used statutory powers of discretion to protect himself from complaints

Question 27

Congreve v Home Office

Answer 27

Revocation of licences was improper use of statute to gain more money

Question 28

Miranda

Answer 28

Stopping and searching journalist to access material was improper use of Terrorism Act

Question 29

Ex parte Brent LBC

Answer 29

Decision makers may have strict policies but must keep their minds ‘ajar’ to exceptional circumstances

Question 30

British Oxygen v Board of Trade

Answer 30

Strict policies are allowed as long as they are not applied strictly and individual cases are decided on their own merits

Question 31

Ex parte Collymore

Answer 31

Flexibly worded policy was applied to strictly as to fetter the decision maker’s discretion
Court will not automatically accept that the decision maker has not shut its ears to the application

Question 32

Ex parte Fire Brigade’s Union

Answer 32

HS could not implement a stricter policy on compensation against the intention of Parliament

Question 33

Ex parte A, D and G

Answer 33

Strict application of policy regarding gender reassignment surgery

Question 34

Corner House Research

Answer 34

Decision maker must retain their discretion unless only course available

Question 35

Ex parte P and ex parte Q

Answer 35

Where a policy interferes with HR - must be flexible

Question 36

Barnard v National Dock Labour Board

Answer 36

Decision maker cannot delegate their power

Question 37

Lavender v Ministry of Housing

Answer 37

Governmental departments must not delegate to one another - messes up accountability

Question 38

Carltona Principle

Answer 38

May delegate within governmental department, unless expressly prohibited by statute

Question 39

Ex parte Olahinde

Answer 39

Fundamental issues (sentencing, deportation) should not be delegated below level of junior minister

Question 40

West Midlands Police

Answer 40

Extended Carltona principle to office holders (e.g. police)

Question 41

DPP v Haw

Answer 41

Carltona Principle must be exercised in regard to the seriousness of the decision and the seniority of the delegate

Question 42

Bourgass

Answer 42

Overriding importance of political and legal accountability - decision by prison authorities to solitarily confine inmates unlawful due to insufficient link to ministry to ensure sufficient degree of responsibility and accountability