Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
L1 Judicial Review - Coggle Diagram
L1 Judicial Review
PQ structure
- Is the decision reasonable? (Wedensbury)
- Have procedural hurdles been fulfilled?
- Has decision maker acted Ultra Vires (Ilegality)?
-
- Does Cliament have standing?
- Procedural fairness - principle of fair hearing, right to be heard, rule against bias etc.
- Need to give reasons for decision?
-
Why/purpose
-
-
Validates decisions, creating certainty and security.
-
-
Controversy of JR
-
Judges, are not experts in the areas being reviewed.
-
-
-
Overview
Whose powers: Decisions of pubic authorities (e.g. Local councils, government, etc) + Private bodies exercising public functions.
Subject of review: Statutory powers, prerogative powers, general administrative powers.
JR questions whether a decision is lawful not whether the decission is good. Only assess decision against legal standards.
The court does not ask 'Is this decision right or wrong' - Laws J in R v Somerset County Council, ex part Fewings [1995] 1 ALL ER 513 at 515.
In the UK we do not have a codified constitution, so we need to justify the grounds and scope of JR.
Grounds of JR
-
Procedural Fairness - Process to which outcome or decision must be procedurally fair. Requires decision makers to meet requirements when making decisions.
-
Proportionality - idea of only doing what is necessary to achieve objective, should achieve objective which has least interference with others.
Justifications of JR
Ultra Vires Model
Idea that If a decision-maker acts ultra vires (outside) the power conferred by statute, the courts may intervene. However, sometimes courts apply legal “principles” of good administration which bear no obvious relation to the statutory text. Direct link with parliamentary intention.
-
-