Judicial review
Judicial review is process where a high court judge will challenge the lawfulness of decisions made by a body carrying out their public functions. Public essential means governmental in nature and/or their devisions affect the general public as in a decision affecting the population
The special procedure to be followed is laid out in PART 54 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES and states that a claimant must first fill out a claim form and then this must be submitted to the high court within the time limit (3 months). Moreover, judicial review is exclusive to public law and not private law and a claim can only be brought if there are no other available remedies
In this scenario, the claimants would be________
And would be bringing action against (the defendants)
_________ would he deemed a public authority under section 6(3) of the Human rights acts 1988 as they are acting with functions amenable to the public. And so under section 6(1) of the Human rights act 1988 can be subject to review. IN ASTON CANTLOW V WALLBANK, a parochial church council was not deemed a public body
Under section 31(3) of the senior courts act 1981, standing will be ascertained by the claimants if they have 'sufficient interest' in the matter
National federation of self employed and small businesses ruled that standing will be ascertained at the full hearing and will be granted if the claimant has good grounds to seek review
If there is a human rights issues then the victim teat as laid down under section 7(3) of the Human Rights Act 1988 will be applied
In jr1's application, standing was denied as the child was not affected by the decision to use taser guns.
THE NGO will be granted standing if they have a close connection with the issue (WORLD DEVELOPMENT MOVEMENT)
It must not be assumed standing will be granted to all matters as in rose theatre standing was denied
If denied standing then the group may participate in the claim as a third part intervener where they can offer advice and expertise on the matter
the grounds for review are set out in CCSU
and include illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety and within the last two months, pham v secretary of state for the home dept recognised proportionality as a common law ground for review
ILLEGALITY INCLUDES
Ultra vires - 'going beyond the power granted' AG V FULHAM (municipal laundry)
Fettering of discretion... LORD REID IN BRITISH OXYGEN BOARD V MINISTER OF TECHNOLOGY stated that 'an authority should not shut their ears to application whens decision concerned is
ABDICATING DISCRETION
FOLLOWING ANOTHER BODYS DECISION AND NOW YOUR OWN ------- Lavender: minister of agriculture had acted unlawfully
DICTATION: ultra vires if ordered to do something ---- roncarell
IMPROPER PURPOSE: when an authority makes a decision based on an improper or ulterior purpose
ERRORS OF LAW
ERRORS OF FACT
IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATION - Roberts v Hopwood (ratepayer was not considered in the decision)
Irrationality essentially concerns unreasonableness and the definition of this was stated by lord greene in wednesbury whereby a decision made a body is "so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have ever come to it"
DUFFY
Proportionality was amended as a common law ground for review following the decision in pham v secretary of state for the home dept. It was held to be now recognised as a common law ground for review irrespective of any issues in relation to eu/echr
Daly ruled a 3 stage test that the courts should consider when dealing with proportionality
The importance of the legitimate aim
Whether the measures taken are rationally connected to that aim
And whether they were no more than necessary in achieving that aim
Huang and begum as case law demonstrate the procedure to be flowed when dealing with review based on an echr ground
Procedural impropriety as a ground for review concerns whether theres been a breach of the rules of natural justice or if theres been a failure to follow a procedural requirement
-Failure to follow a statutory procedure: in Bradbury v enfield lbc the local authority had failed to follow the procedure laid down
-Right to be heard: john v rees ruled anyone who has to exercise a statutory right
Right to be judged free from bias : porter v magll: whether a fair minded and informed observer conclude and real possibility of bias DIMES V GJCP: Actual bias is not necessary, appearance of bias is enough to disqualify a judge from hearing a case
Consulation: coughlan
Legitimate expectation: a procedure being followed creates a legitimate expectation of a substantive benefit being conferred AG V NG YUEN SHIU: should have been listened in relation to his application
If it can be proven that the D has acted in contravention to one or more of the grounds for review then it may be possible that the courts would grant a remedy. Remedies are discretionary and are divided into ordinary(injunction, declaration, damages) and perogative (mandatory, prohibitory and quashing orders)
Quashing order revokes the previous decision
In ex part st germain an order was used
Prohibitory order stops an act from taking place
Mandatory order compels a public body/authority to do something
Injunctions can either allow the d from acting in a certain way (mandatory) or make the d stop an act prohibitory
Interim injunction allows to pressure litigants until trial
Declaration between the parties makes the position
