O slideshow foi denunciado.
Utilizamos seu perfil e dados de atividades no LinkedIn para personalizar e exibir anúncios mais relevantes. Altere suas preferências de anúncios quando desejar.

Judicial review 3

743 visualizações

Publicada em

Judicial Review and related cases

Publicada em: Educação, Esportes
  • Seja o primeiro a comentar

Judicial review 3

  1. 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 Court’s role here (nb Ward v. Bradford Corporation (1971) 70 LGR 27.)
  2. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 shouldn’t public bodies give reasons for their decisions?
  8. 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. 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. 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.

×