Jimena - JR

Question 1

Definition -> Wade

Answer 1

in the UK it is used to supervise and review on the grounds of legality the decisions and public functions of public bodies

Question 2

Definition -> Public Law Project Leaflet

Answer 2

a set of legal principles governing the exercise of power by public bodies

Question 3

When is a decision found to be unlawful?

Answer 3

• Decision maker didn’t have the power to make the decision
• Decision maker is using the power improperly
• Decision is irrational
• Procedure followed was unfair or biased or in breach of the HRA

Question 4

What do the courts review?

Answer 4

• not the facts & substance
• specific grounds for review
• grounds are limited

Question 5

What is JR a construction of?

Answer 5

• common law
• developed over time

Question 6

What does JR target?

Answer 6

• decisions of public bodies
• this is wide -> includes ministers, local gov. police etc
• any institute of the State

Question 7

How do you start JR?

Answer 7

• have to make an application

Question 8

When is JR appropriate?

Answer 8

• when there is no adequate alternative remedy

Question 9

What does the Noleen McAleenon case (2024) tell us?

Answer 9

• availability of alternative remedies doesn’t automatically prevent JR
• appellant claims that she has suffered various physical symptoms and a deterioration in her mental health caused by a nuisance odour carried by emission
• SC allowed appeal -> held that a private prosecution or civil claim in nuisance was not an adequate alternative to JR

Question 10

What are the functions of JR?
(10)

Answer 10

• upholds RoL
• source of legitimacy if decision is declared lawful
• Statutory interpretation -> if claim that powers were wrongly used, court has to interpret wording of the Act
• Adjudicating institutional relationships -> courts can interpret who has power to do what
• protection of individuals from public bodies
• establishing & applying general principles (creative function)
• insistence on core values of good governance (ensure state acts fairly and honestly)
• elaboration and vindication of fundamental rights -> JR can offer protection, like HRA
• vehicle for interest representation -> public can bring cases
• instrument of transparency -> factual evidence is independently gathered and assessed

Question 11

What was JR originally used for?
What has changed?

Answer 11

• a way of central control of the localities -> actions of a lower court could be challenged at the HC
• its role has widened -> can look at actions of other public bodies

Question 12

What are remedies based on?

Answer 12

• prerogative writs

Question 13

Wednesbury case
date
facts
judgement

Answer 13

• 1948
• local authority prohibited people from going to the cinema on Sundays
• Held that it was not outside their powers

Question 14

How did the Wednesbury case develop JR ?(2)

Answer 14

• held that a local authority must take all relevant considerations into account + no irrelevant ones -> court determines relevancy by looking at statutory provisions
• there may be circumstances where local authority have gone through the right process (like this case) but the court will still overrule a substantive decision because it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would have ever come to it [Wednesbury unreasonableness] -> new ground for JR

Question 15

Ridge v Baldwin
date
facts
held

Answer 15

• [1964]
• Chief Constable sacked on grounds of corruption without a proper hearing -> could he seek JR?
• Court asserted the role of natural justice (unbiased and fair) -> started the development of procedural review
• Lord Reid -> natural justice should be default position when people are affected by State actions -> BUT the way it applies will vary according to context

Question 16

Padfield
date
facts
held

Answer 16

• [1968]
• Act gave minister powers to send a matter that farmers wanted reviewed to a committee of investigation -> minister decided not to sent it for political reasons
• Lord Reid -> when Parliament gives discretion it must have intended that whatever decision madee under it would further the purpose of the Act -> it didn’t here
• Judges decided the purpose of the Act from wording of statute -> decide if a minister is acting according to those
• A minister’s discretion in exercising his statutory powers is subject to the restriction that it cannot frustrate the purpose of the Act he derives

Question 17

GCHQ
date & full name
facts
issue
held

Answer 17

• [1985]
• CCSU v Minister of Civil Service
• Minister wanted to change the employment of some people employed under prerogative powers
• issue was whether you could have JR of the exercise of prerogative powers?
• held that you can -> seen again in Miller I

Question 18

What were the grounds of JR according to Lord Diplock in GCHQ?

Answer 18

• illegality -> do they have the power
• irrationality -> Wednesbury unreasonable or fails the relevancy test
• procedural impropriety -> unfair procedure / breach of natural justice
• may also have a 4th test of proportionality -> is decision disproportionate?

Question 19

UNISON
date

Answer 19

• 2017
• Lord Chancellor tried to implement fee scheme when accessing tribunal service
• Lord Reed highlights importance of JR upholding RoL -> need access to courts
• ouster clauses raise issue
• underlines important constitutional elements of JR -> e.g. constitutional right to access to justice -> also links to Miller I and II
• the limits placed on the Lord Chancellor’s use of the fee making power were justified by, inter alia, the rule of law and common law constitutional rights