Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Public law topics 9 and 10 Judicial review - Coggle Diagram
Public law topics 9 and 10
Judicial review
Illegality
Challenging
what
a public body has done
DM has made a decision that it did not have the power to make
Lord Diplock in GCHQ: 'By illegality as a ground for JR I mean that the decision maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision making power and must give effect to it'.)
'Subgrounds'
:red_flag:
Delegation
of discretion
General principal: if a decision has been delegated to you, can't delegate it further. (There are exceptions to this general rule.)
May be express or implied permission within a statute to delegate.
Carltona principle: ministers can delegate within their depts
Local Govt Act s.101: LA's given statutory power to arrange for discharge of their functions to the committee, sub-committees or an officer of the authority
:red_flag:
Improper purpose
DM acting for a purpose not expressly or impliedly authorised by the power
Congreve v Home Office [1978] - increase in TV licence fee - abuse of power to revoke licence just b/c he paid early to avoid increase. Purpose of licence - not to raise revenue for Home Office.
Wheeler v Leic. City Council [1985] - LCC withdrew licence for rugby club to use ground to punish club members re S.Af. tour. Improper purpose.
:red_flag:
Fettering of
discretion
Public auths can have a policy reflecting auths priorities. May not apply so rigidly that it refuses to consider whether exceptions apply eg British Oxygen; ex p Collymore
:red_flag:
'Strict' ultra vires/
simple illegality
DM has made decision wholly outside what the statute allows
:red_flag:
Error
of law
Generally
reviewable
except in certain circs
DM has made a mistake re a question of law eg DM has :confounded: misinterpreted a word in a statute
ex p Page - all errors of law are reviewable except:
:arrow_right: where the error is not decisive to the decision (i.e. even without the error, DM would have come to the same conclusion)
:arrow_right: where DM is interpreting special system of rules
:arrow_right: where power is so imprecise/capable of broad interpretation so that different DMs, each acting rationally, could reach a different decision
:red_flag:
Error
of fact
Generally
not reviewable
except in certain circs
DM has :confounded:
misunderstood
one or more facts or circs re the case or the claimant (about the
application
of words (often in statutes))
Errors of fact are generally not reviewable except in the following 3 situations:
:arrow_right:
Precedent fact (aka jurisdictional fact)
- i.e.a fact that the DM must have correct before they make the decision
:arrow_right:
Acting on no evidence (of a fact)
- i.e. when a factual finding by a DM is not supported by
any
evidence
:arrow_right:
Error or ignorance of a material fact
eg SoS for Educ v Tameside [1977]
E v Home Sec [2004] 4 criteria: there is a mistake as to an existing fact; fact/evidence must have been 'established' (objectively verifiable); applicant was not responsible for the mistake; mistake has played a material part in decision (need not be decisive)
:red_flag: Relevant and irrelevant consideration
DM taking into a/c irrelevant considerations (or not taking into a/c relevant considerations)
Fewings: DM may have 3 types of considerations to consider:
Mandatory factors - which a DM must take into account
Prohibited factors - which a DM may not take into account
Discretionary factors - which a DM may take into account
Procedural impropriety
Unreasonableness