Judicial Review Substantive I

Question 1

Who made the landmark observation delineating the grounds for judicial review into three primary categories, and in which case?

What are the three primary categories of grounds for judicial review outlined by Lord Diplock?

Answer 1

Lord Diplock in the case of Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [1985].

Illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety.

Question 2

Which principle, recognized in the administrative law of several European Economic Community members, did Diplock hint might be included in judicial review grounds?

Answer 2

Proportionality.

Question 3

What term is used to describe the variation in how judicial review is applied, from ‘anxious scrutiny’ to more assertive approaches?

Answer 3

Variability in Review Standards.

Question 4

What concept signifies the judiciary’s more intense scrutiny in reviewing administrative actions in recent times?

Answer 4

Ratcheting-Up.

Question 5

What marks a pivotal evolution in judicial review, emphasizing the protection and enforcement of individual rights within administrative law?

Answer 5

Rise of Rights-Based Approaches.

Question 6

What concept revolves around the judiciary respecting the autonomy and decision-making prerogatives of democratic institutions and public bodies?

Answer 6

Judicial Restraint.

Question 7

What court is associated with the narrative of judicial restraint, emphasizing respect for the expertise and legitimacy of governance by public bodies?

Answer 7

The Reed Court.

Question 8

What cases are cited as illustrations of the judiciary’s proactive role in asserting common law principles against expansive executive powers?

Answer 8

Osborn and UNISON.

Question 9

What principles do these cases emphasise as important in the exercise of discretion and protection of rights by the judiciary?(Osborn & Unison)

Answer 9

Fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality.

Question 10

How do legislative responses often react to judicial activism in the context of judicial review?

Answer 10

By attempting to redefine the boundaries of judicial review to limit judicial intervention in administrative decisions, described as ‘clamping down.’

Question 11

What critical aspect of statutory interpretation is discussed, particularly regarding the terms ‘may’ and ‘shall’?

Answer 11

The distinction between ‘may’ conferring discretion and ‘shall’ imposing a duty.

Question 12

Which case crystallises the doctrine of unreasonableness in judicial review, and who made the judgment?

Answer 12

Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation, judgment by Lord Greene.

Question 13

What are the two senses of unreasonableness elucidated in the case?
(Wednsbury case)

Answer 13

The ‘umbrella’ sense, encompassing various grounds for reviewing administrative discretion, and the ‘substantive’ sense, for intervention when a decision is so fundamentally flawed that no reasonable authority could have made it.

Question 14

What does the ‘umbrella’ sense of unreasonableness include?

Answer 14

Considerations like bad faith, relevance of factors, and adherence to public policy.

Question 15

What purpose does the ‘substantive’ sense of unreasonableness serve in judicial review?

Answer 15

It acts as a safeguard against decisions that are so aberrant that they defy logical explanation.

Question 16

What does the Wednesbury standard signify in judicial review?

Answer 16

It embodies the judiciary’s restraint in interfering with administrative decisions, stating that only overwhelmingly unreasonable decisions can be overturned.

Question 17

What themes does the discussion on the Wednesbury standard weave together?

Answer 17

Legal evolution, the balance of powers, and the interpretive challenges faced by courts in ensuring administrative actions remain within the bounds of law and reason.

Question 18

What does the “umbrella” aspect of the Wednesbury decision encompass?

Answer 18

It provides a broad framework for reviewing the rationality of administrative decisions, including principles such as improper purposes, frustration of statutory objectives, relevance and irrelevance of considerations, fettering of discretion, and bad faith.

Question 19

What principle is central to maintaining the integrity of administrative actions?

Which case illustrates the judiciary’s role in ensuring administrative discretion aligns with legislative intent?

Answer 19

That discretionary powers must not be exercised for an improper purpose.

Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture.
(Minister refused to get involved in statute for farming prices - which went against the safeguard for launching enquiries= goes against Parliament’s intent).

Question 20

What did Lord Reid assert in Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture?

What concerns does judicial oversight in interpreting legislative intent raise?

Answer 20

That the discretion granted by Parliament is intended to promote the policy and objects of the Act, and courts can intervene if discretion is exercised in a way that thwarts the Act’s objectives.

Concerns about judicial overreach, especially when courts interpret the scope and purpose of legislative provisions, potentially blurring the lines between legal interpretation and policy evaluation.

Question 21

What does the potential for doctrines like “improper purpose” to be stretched reflect in the context of judicial review?

Answer 21

It reflects the evolving nature of judicial review and the courts’ willingness to adopt a more assertive stance in certain contexts.

Question 22

What foundational standard established by Wednesbury represents in terms of judicial restraint?

Answer 22

It represents the judiciary’s restraint in interfering with administrative decisions, stating that only overwhelmingly unreasonable decisions can be overturned.

Question 23

Which case involved the Court of Appeal scrutinizing delegated legislation restricting access to legal aid in domestic violence cases?

Answer 23

R (Rights of Women) v Lord Chancellor.

-HELD

Ultra vires

Rights of Women claimed that Regulation 33 goes beyond the regulation making power contained in Section 12 of the LASPO and is thus ultra vires. They submitted that Section 12 did not empower the Lord Chancellor to impose any bar to the obtaining of legal aid which was not contemplated by the merits criteria in Section 11. The Court dismissed this argument (Recognising instances where legal aid may not be applicable).

Question 24

What was emphasized by the court in R (Rights of Women) regarding the purpose of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012?
(Initial courts argued?)

Answer 24

The inital court emphasized the balance between budgetary constraints and the need to provide legal services to the most deserving cases, such as victims of domestic violence.

Court of appeal - held that regulation was ultra virus + Lord Chancellor acted out of bounds by imposing a bar for them to get legal aid.

Question 25

What principle extends beyond the exercise of statutory discretion to encompass actions that might undercut statutory provisions? In which case did the Supreme Court emphasize that ministers cannot use prerogative powers to frustrate the purpose or operation of statutes?

Answer 25

The principle that administrative decisions must not frustrate the purpose of a statute. R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU.

Question 26

What does the decision in R (Miller) serve as a safeguard against?

Answer 26

It serves as a safeguard against the circumvention of legislative mandates through executive action, ensuring that statutory objectives are respected and fulfilled.

Question 27

What does the trend of judicial assertiveness in the face of executive actions highlight?

Answer 27

It underscores a broader trend of judicial assertiveness in ensuring that executive actions do not contravene statutory purposes, reinforcing the rule of law and guiding administrative action by statutory objectives.

Question 28

What balance does judicial assertiveness raise questions about?

Answer 28

It raises questions about the balance between judicial oversight and respect for the autonomy of the legislative and executive branches.

Question 29

What societal view did Lord Atkinson's remarks in Roberts v Hopwood reflect?

Answer 29

Lord Atkinson = Patriarchy Lord Atkinson's remarks reflect a societal view influenced by "eccentric principles of socialistic philanthropy" or a "feminist ambition," critiquing equal wages for male and female workers.

Question 30

What principle is illustrated by the case of R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Venables?

Answer 30

Home-secretary could determine prison sentences = gave 8 then 10 then 15 on the basis of public opinion rather than statutory guidelines The principle that decision-makers must remain impartial and focused on relevant facts and legal principles, excluding irrelevant external pressures like public opinion and media campaigns.

Question 31

How do courts ensure that administrative decisions align with legislative intent?

Answer 31

By actively preventing the frustration of statutory purposes, courts reflect a commitment to upholding legislative intent and protecting the rights and interests of individuals and groups affected by administrative decisions.

Question 32

What does the decision in Roberts v Hopwood (1925) emphasise regarding judicial perspectives?

Answer 32

-Purpose of the statute = unclear - therefore they used the statute to reflect what they thought was more right and proper according to a shift in societal views i.e., equal wage. -Used judicial review to assert their own societal views = Patriarchy rather than imposing equal minimum wage which was wanted by local council.

Question 33

What reminder does the case of ex parte Venables serve regarding decision-makers?

Answer 33

It serves as a stark reminder of the need for decision-makers to adhere to principles of justice and the rule of law, resisting the allure of populism.

Question 34

What does the judiciary's role in delineating the boundaries of relevant considerations within the decision-making process demonstrate?

Answer 34

It demonstrates the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that administrative decisions are made based on a rational assessment of factors legally and factually pertinent to the issue, fostering fairness, transparency, and accountability.

Question 35

How can the interpretation of what is deemed relevant or irrelevant evolve?

Answer 35

The interpretation can evolve over time or vary depending on the context, reflecting changes in societal values, legal principles, and the specific circumstances of each case.

Question 36

What is the significance of the Supreme Court's decision in R (Friends of the Earth Ltd) v Heathrow Airport Ltd [2020] UKSC 52?

Answer 36

It highlights the importance of administrative decisions accounting for relevant considerations, particularly statutory obligations and international commitments such as the Paris Agreement on climate change. Considered the above but the Supreme court ultimately said it was lawful to expand the airport - Discretion assessed under reasonablity test - found that it was reasonable for secretary of state to make decision. =Made clear the duty to consider

Question 37

What framework did the Supreme Court clarify for determining relevant considerations in decision-making processes?

Answer 37

Categorisation of considerations. The framework includes statutorily mandated considerations, statutorily excluded considerations, and discretionary considerations, with further nuances on how discretion may be exercised.

Question 38

How does the principle of irrationality from the Wednesbury unreasonableness doctrine integrate into this framework?

Answer 38

-Safety net (Secondary category) It emphasizes the importance of rational decision-making in administrative law, ensuring that discretion is exercised in a manner that is not patently irrational.

Question 39

What do the cases of Roberts v Hopwood and Venables illustrate regarding judicial vigilance?

Answer 39

They reflect the judiciary's vigilance in safeguarding the integrity of administrative decision-making against the encroachment of improper considerations, maintaining the separation of powers and ensuring actions are grounded in legal frameworks.