際際滷

際際滷Share a Scribd company logo

Judicial review 3

Download as PPT, PDF
M
Megapoison

This document discusses the grounds for judicial review based on procedural impropriety, specifically breach of express statutory requirements and breach of fair procedure. It notes two subcategories of breach of fair procedure - the rule against bias, and the right to a fair hearing. The right to a fair hearing includes the rights to know the case against you, have sufficient time to prepare, and exceptions related to public interest and national security. The document also discusses proportionality in judicial review and the effect of the Human Rights Act of 1998.

1 of 10
Downloaded 26 times
Judicial Review 3 (III) PROCEDURAL IMPROPRIETY Divided into two categories; (a) Breach of Express Statutory Requirements (b) Breach of Fair Procedure Note limits of the Courts role here (nb Ward v. Bradford Corporation (1971) 70 LGR 27.)
Judicial Review 3 (a) Breach of Express Statutory Requirements Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board v. Aylesbury Mushrooms [1972] 1 All ER 280. R v. Brent LBC ex p Gunning (1985) 84 LGR 168. R v. S of S for Social Services ex p AMA [1986] 1 All ER 164 Consequences of failure to comply??
Judicial Review 3 (b) Breach of Fair Procedure Two sub-categories (i) The Rule Against Bias NB : R v. Sussex Justices ex p McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256, 259 per Lord Hewart CJ: "It is not merely of some importance but of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."
Judicial Review 3 NB no actual bias need be shown. R v. Gough [1993] 2 All ER 724. R v. Inner West London Coroner ex p Dallaglio [1994] 4 All ER 139. R v. Bow Street Stipendiary Magistrate and ors ex p Pinochet Ugarte [1999] 1 All ER 577 Locobail (UK) Ltd v. Bayfield Properties Ltd (2000) QB 451
Judicial Review 3 (ii) The Right to a Fair Hearing Ridge v. Baldwin [1964] AC 40 What is a fair hearing? The person must know the case against him - Kanda v. Government of Malaya [1962] AC 322. He must have sufficient time to prepare his own case R v. Thames Magistrates' Court ex p Polemis [1974] 1 WLR 1371
Judicial Review 3 Exceptions to this rule: Public Interest : R v. Gaming Board for Great Britain ex p Benaim and Khaida [1970] 2 All ER 528. National Security : R v. S of S for the Home Department ex p Hosenball [1977] 3 All ER 452, R v. S of S for the Home Department ex p Cheblak [1991] 2 All ER 319. Note the difference between the exceptions.
Judicial Review 3 Should the person be legally represented? - Pitt v. Greyhound Association of Great Britain [1968] 2 All ER 545, R v. S of S for the Home Department ex p Tarrant [1985] QB 251. Should the Public Body be required to give reasons for its decision? Payne v. Harris [1982] 2 All ER 842., R v. Civil Service Appeal Board ex p Cunningham [1991] 4 All ER 310,Doody v. S of S for the Home Department [1993] 3 All ER 92 Why shouldnt public bodies give reasons for their decisions?
Judicial Review 3 PROPORTIONALITY R v. S of S for the Home Department ex p Brind [1991] 1 All ER 720 R v. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council ex p Hook [1976] 1 WLR 102. See now The effect of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Judicial Review 3 The Human Rights Act 1998 R v. S of S for the Home Department ex p Daly [2001] UKHL 26 Conclusion.
Judicial Review 3 The Human Rights Act 1998 R v. S of S for the Home Department ex p Daly [2001] UKHL 26 Conclusion.

More Related Content

Judicial review 3

  • 1. Judicial Review 3 (III) PROCEDURAL IMPROPRIETY Divided into two categories; (a) Breach of Express Statutory Requirements (b) Breach of Fair Procedure Note limits of the Courts role here (nb Ward v. Bradford Corporation (1971) 70 LGR 27.)
  • 2. Judicial Review 3 (a) Breach of Express Statutory Requirements Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board v. Aylesbury Mushrooms [1972] 1 All ER 280. R v. Brent LBC ex p Gunning (1985) 84 LGR 168. R v. S of S for Social Services ex p AMA [1986] 1 All ER 164 Consequences of failure to comply??
  • 3. Judicial Review 3 (b) Breach of Fair Procedure Two sub-categories (i) The Rule Against Bias NB : R v. Sussex Justices ex p McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256, 259 per Lord Hewart CJ: "It is not merely of some importance but of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."
  • 4. Judicial Review 3 NB no actual bias need be shown. R v. Gough [1993] 2 All ER 724. R v. Inner West London Coroner ex p Dallaglio [1994] 4 All ER 139. R v. Bow Street Stipendiary Magistrate and ors ex p Pinochet Ugarte [1999] 1 All ER 577 Locobail (UK) Ltd v. Bayfield Properties Ltd (2000) QB 451
  • 5. Judicial Review 3 (ii) The Right to a Fair Hearing Ridge v. Baldwin [1964] AC 40 What is a fair hearing? The person must know the case against him - Kanda v. Government of Malaya [1962] AC 322. He must have sufficient time to prepare his own case R v. Thames Magistrates' Court ex p Polemis [1974] 1 WLR 1371
  • 6. Judicial Review 3 Exceptions to this rule: Public Interest : R v. Gaming Board for Great Britain ex p Benaim and Khaida [1970] 2 All ER 528. National Security : R v. S of S for the Home Department ex p Hosenball [1977] 3 All ER 452, R v. S of S for the Home Department ex p Cheblak [1991] 2 All ER 319. Note the difference between the exceptions.
  • 7. Judicial Review 3 Should the person be legally represented? - Pitt v. Greyhound Association of Great Britain [1968] 2 All ER 545, R v. S of S for the Home Department ex p Tarrant [1985] QB 251. Should the Public Body be required to give reasons for its decision? Payne v. Harris [1982] 2 All ER 842., R v. Civil Service Appeal Board ex p Cunningham [1991] 4 All ER 310,Doody v. S of S for the Home Department [1993] 3 All ER 92 Why shouldnt public bodies give reasons for their decisions?
  • 8. Judicial Review 3 PROPORTIONALITY R v. S of S for the Home Department ex p Brind [1991] 1 All ER 720 R v. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council ex p Hook [1976] 1 WLR 102. See now The effect of the Human Rights Act 1998.
  • 9. Judicial Review 3 The Human Rights Act 1998 R v. S of S for the Home Department ex p Daly [2001] UKHL 26 Conclusion.
  • 10. Judicial Review 3 The Human Rights Act 1998 R v. S of S for the Home Department ex p Daly [2001] UKHL 26 Conclusion.