Judicial Review

Revision notes:

Constitutional significance of Judicial Review

• Judicial Review allows individuals to challenge decisions made by state, but not all decisions are subject to judicial review

• It ensures accountability of executive power within constitution, allows courts to rule on legality of powers and whether they have been exercised in the manner intended.

• Judicial review is a challenge to the process to which decisions are made.

What decisions are susceptible to JR? (scope)

• Decision must be made by a public body

R v Disciplinary Committee of Jockey Club, ex parte Aga Khan (1993)

Decision must be made under delegated powers: primary legislation (Act of Parliament) can delegate powers to a person or body to implement secondary.

Bringing an action for JR

• Judicial Review is commenced by High Court, but requires permission (formerly known as ‘leave’) of the court? must satisfy: The existence of a prima facie case and the claimant must have locus standi (right to bring the case)

• Locus standi: Need to have ‘sufficient interest’ in the disputed matter? to prevent frivolous actions

R v Inland Revenue, ex parte National Federation (1982)

Facts: The Federation sought to challenge Inlands Revenue’s procedures for charging taxes on casual workers engaged by Fleet Street newspapers. The Federation argued their members were disadvantaged

Held: Taxation arrangement did not apply to individual members of Federation. Therefore, did not have ‘sufficient interest’.

Grounds for judicial review

Council Civil Service Unions v Minister for Civil Service (the ‘GCHQ’ case) [1985]

Facts: Government workers at secret Government Communicators Headquarters (GCHQ) not allowed to join trade union in case go on strike – government altered, by prerogative powers, terms of employment to prohibit union membership? union sought JR? held by Lord Diplock there are 3 grounds for JR at which administrative action is subject to JR ‘illegality’, ‘irrationality’ and ‘procedural impropriety’

Illegality= decision-maker acted outside their authority
• decision said to be ultra vires (beyond powers)? contrast against intra vires (within powers)
• illegality can be seen as ‘absence of authority’? given powers to make decisions in a specific area, if they move outside that area, decisions may be ultra vires.

AG v Fulham Corporation (1921)

Irrationality= ‘unreasonableness’ – as defined in Associated Provincial Pictures Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948).

Procedural impropriety – ‘has the correct procedure been followed?’

Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board v Aylesbury (1972)

Facts: A minister was empowered to establish Industrial Training Boards. However, in doing so, was required to consult relevant organisations. The Mushroom Growers Associations did not receive consultation and took no part in the process

Held: The Board was valid to the bodies that were consulted, does not apply to Mushroom Growers.

Legitimate expectation

For procedural protection e.g. reasonable expectation, the applicant will be given a hearing.

• Quashing order (certiorari)
• Mandatory order (mandamus)
• Prohibiting order (prohibition
• Injunction
• Declaration