Judicial (Substantive) review II Flashcards
What was the Supreme Court’s conclusion regarding the Secretary of State’s consideration of the Paris Agreement?
The Supreme Court found that the Secretary of State had indeed considered the Paris Agreement and that the decision not to give additional weight to the Agreement beyond the existing obligations under the Climate Change Act 2008 was not irrational.
What was the main issue the Supreme Court had to determine in the Heathrow expansion case?
Whether the Secretary of State for Transport failed to properly consider the UK’s commitments under the Paris Agreement in issuing the National Policy Statement under the Planning Act 2008.
How has the concept of “Wednesbury unreasonableness” evolved in the context of judicial review?
It has evolved from a “safety net” for egregious cases of irrational decision-making to accommodate varying intensities of judicial scrutiny depending on the context and the nature of the rights involved.
What does Lord Greene’s formulation of “Wednesbury unreasonableness” require for judicial intervention?
How has the application of the Wednesbury principle become more nuanced over time?
It requires a decision to be so illogical or immoral that no reasonable person could have arrived at it, setting a high bar for judicial intervention.
It has shifted towards a more context-sensitive approach, acknowledging that different cases may warrant different levels of judicial scrutiny.
What approach did Lord Scarman advocate for in Nottinghamshire CC v Secretary of State for the Environment?
What does the notion of a “sliding scale” of review illustrate in judicial review?
- A very deferential stance in matters involving political judgment, suggesting that the judiciary should refrain from intervening barring bad faith, improper motive, or absurd consequences.
-It illustrates the flexibility of the Wednesbury principle, with the intensity of judicial review varying according to the gravity of the issue and the context, ensuring that scrutiny is proportionate to the importance of the rights at stake.
How does the proportionality test differ from ‘Wednesbury unreasonableness’ in analysing administrative decisions?
The proportionality test offers a more structured and rigorous analysis by examining the suitability and necessity of a restrictive measure to achieve a legitimate aim, and whether it strikes a fair balance between individual rights and community interests.
What case highlighted the inadequacy of the ‘Wednesbury’ standard in effectively protecting human rights, according to the European Court of Human Rights?
Smith and Grady v UK [2000], which followed the national case R v. Ministry of Defence ex p. Smith [1996], criticised ‘Wednesbury unreasonableness’ for setting the threshold for irrationality so high that it precluded substantive review of rights infringements.
In which case did Lord Steyn underscore the differences between ‘Wednesbury unreasonableness’ and proportionality, suggesting a more intensive review may be required?
R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001].
What are the driving factors behind the push towards proportionality testing over the traditional Wednesbury standard?
Proportionality testing is driven by its simplicity, structured methodology, and a culture of justification, offering a unified approach applicable across various legal contexts and demanding reasoned justifications for actions.
How has the application of ‘Wednesbury unreasonableness’ adapted to accommodate principles of proportionality where fundamental rights are at stake?
Its application has evolved to allow for more thorough judicial scrutiny of decisions affecting fundamental rights, aligning domestic jurisprudence more closely with European Union law and ECHR standards by incorporating a context-dependent intensity of review.
What does the flexibility of proportionality testing in the context of ECHR case law illustrate?
How do proportionality and Wednesbury unreasonableness serve different functions in judicial review?
It illustrates that courts can exercise deference within a proportionality framework, adapting their scrutiny to the context and nature of the rights involved.
Proportionality is suited to assessing interferences with rights or interests, while Wednesbury unreasonableness is broader, more appropriate for evaluating factual assessments by public officials.
Where does proportionality testing primarily find its place in UK law?
Through statutory mandates like the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010, and in protecting fundamental rights recognised at common law.
What cases illustrate the Supreme Court’s engagement with the role of proportionality in UK law?
What does the case of Youssef v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2016] highlight?
Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Keyu v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
It underscores the judiciary’s awareness of the need for clarity and perhaps a more structured approach to administrative law’s tests without providing a definitive stance.
What did Lord Carnwath express a desire for in the Youssef case?
What does the invocation of proportionality in relation to fundamental rights suggest?
An “authoritative review” of the standards applicable to administrative decisions, highlighting the need for structured guidance over imprecise concepts.
An inclination towards integrating proportionality more formally in the review of administrative actions affecting such rights.
How does the Wednesbury model contrast in its relevance according to the Supreme Court in R (Gallaher Group Ltd) v Competition and Markets Authority [2018]?
The Supreme Court underscored the concept of rationality as a standalone ground for review, independent of subjective concepts, suggesting Wednesbury unreasonableness remains a cornerstone of judicial review.
