Public Law: Illegality and Judicial Review

When a public body acts beyond the legal limits of its powers.

A legal principle that ensures public bodies stay within their granted powers.

The principle that public bodies must understand and follow the law when making decisions.

A specific type of illegality where a decision maker considers irrelevant factors or ignores relevant ones.

A broad concept that encompasses various situations where a body acts unlawfully.

A situation where a public body acts outside its legal authority, even if there's no clear power to do so.

A local authority's power to provide washhouses does not extend to operating a laundry service.

A public body may act lawfully by performing actions that are a natural consequence of its existing powers.

A principle that presumes Parliament doesn't intend to infringe fundamental rights without clear statutory authorization.

The courts' approach to statutory interpretation, assuming Parliament doesn't mean to violate fundamental rights.

A decision-maker making a mistake about a legal rule, like misinterpreting a statute's meaning.

All errors of law are potentially reviewable, EXCEPT when the error isn't crucial to the decision.

Courts are less likely to review a decision maker's interpretation of specific systems like university statutes.

Courts won't intervene if Parliament made a decision final, even if there's an error of law.

A decision is unreviewable for error of law if the legal power is vague and open to multiple interpretations.

The court's initial finding of fact that determines whether a decision-maker has the power to act.

A factual mistake that occurs when a decision-maker acts without any evidence to support their claim.

An error of fact where the decision-maker is unaware of or misunderstands a known fact.

Courts were originally hesitant to review factual errors, seeing it as interfering with executive decision-making.

Courts are now more open to reviewing factual errors, acknowledging that they can impact decisions.

A type of review where a court examines whether a decision-maker acted within their legal authority.

Judicial review is an important check on the power of the executive to ensure that it acts within the bounds of the law.

A legal challenge to a public decision based on the decision-maker's incorrect understanding of a factual matter that directly affects their power to make the decision.

A factual mistake where a decision is based on a fact that is not supported by any evidence, leading to potential overturning of the decision.

A factual error where the decision-maker incorrectly understands an established and objectively verifiable fact, potentially leading to unfairness in the decision-making process.

A legal challenge where a decision-maker considers irrelevant factors or fails to consider relevant factors in making a decision, potentially leading to an unlawful outcome.

Factors explicitly mentioned or implied in a statute that must be considered when making a decision.

Factors that can be taken into account when making a decision but are not legally required for consideration.

Factors that should not be considered when making a decision, as they are legally prohibited.

The principle that legal decisions should be based on accurate information and that mistakes of established fact can lead to unfairness.

A situation where a mistake of fact has caused unfairness in the decision-making process, potentially allowing for judicial review.

The process of deciding whether a court should review a particular decision to determine if it's lawful and fair.

A set of legal principles and rules that determine whether a decision is lawful, fair and reasonable.

A decision made by an individual or body with the power to make decisions based on their legal authority.

The right of an individual to be informed about a decision that affects them and to have a chance to present their own perspective.

The legal rule that requires decision-makers to consider all relevant factors and exclude irrelevant factors when making administrative decisions.

Factors specifically stated in a statute that must not be considered by a decision-maker.

Factors that a decision-maker may consider if they deem it appropriate, but are not mandatory.

The courts make sure that decision-makers comply with the law by following the rules set out in statutes.

A decision is unlawful if it ignores mandatory factors or takes into account prohibitory factors.

A decision-maker may lawfully consider discretionary factors as long as they also take into account other relevant considerations.

Courts determine which factors are relevant or irrelevant in a specific case, based on the statutory framework and guidance.

Clear statutory language makes it easier for courts to define relevant factors, while broadly worded discretionary powers give courts more leeway.

Case where the Home Secretary's decision to set excessive minimum sentences for two young murderers was quashed due to irrelevant considerations.

The Home Secretary's consideration of public outcry and failure to consider the welfare of the children rendered his decision unlawful.

Case where a local authority's decision to increase wages above market rate without considering ratepayers' interests was deemed unlawful.

Case where a council's consideration of its own resources was deemed relevant in assessing the needs of a disabled person.

Case where a council's decision to reduce home tuition due to financial constraints was quashed because it failed to consider a child's educational needs.

Using a statutory power for a purpose other than what it was intended for.

Case where the Minister's refusal to refer a complaint was unlawful because he wanted to avoid potential embarrassment.

Statutes may explicitly state the purpose for granting power, or the purpose may be implied through interpreting the statute as a whole.

Statutes explicitly permitting decision-making delegation to others (committees, officers, other authorities).

The principle that allows government ministers to delegate their discretion to officials within their department even if the statute doesn't expressly say so.

This principle initially applied to central government but has since been broadened to include other public offices.

Public office holders, like Chief Constables, can delegate most functions to subordinates. They are accountable for these actions.

The court held that decisions to deport immigrants could be made by Immigration Inspectors as they were civil servants.

Accountability is crucial in delegation. The minister must be responsible for the decisions made by officials under the Carltona Principle.

A public body acting unreasonably in its decision-making process.

The principle of unreasonableness stems from the idea that public bodies must use their reason and act rationally.

This principle gained prominence from the Wednesbury case, establishing a framework for courts to review public body decisions.

Facts of the Wednesbury case: A local authority imposed a condition on a cinema license, preventing children under 15 from attending on Sundays.

The court held that the local authority's decision was reasonable, as the physical and moral health of children was a relevant consideration.

Wednesbury test: Courts can interfere with a public body's decision if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable body would have made it.

The Wednesbury test emphasizes that courts should not interfere with a public body's policy decisions simply because they disagree.

The Wednesbury test focuses on the extreme case where even a reasonable body would not have made the decision.

If a decision is so unreasonable, it's considered a breach of the principle of reasonableness, providing grounds for judicial review.

When a public body has restricted its own ability to properly exercise a discretionary power, it is said to have "fettered" its discretion. This can happen when the body effectively decides not to exercise its power at all, opting instead for a predetermined course of action.

A public body's ability to make decisions is usually constrained by its legal powers and the relevant statutory framework.

Decisions made by public bodies must be based on relevant and objective factors. Ignoring or considering irrelevant factors makes a decision unlawful.

In R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union (1995), the House of Lords ruled that a statutory scheme cannot be replaced by a new scheme using prerogative powers when the statutory scheme was already in place. This means that the original statutory power was an obligation that could not be simply disregarded.

Public bodies can adopt policies for exercising their discretionary powers. However, these policies should not be too rigid or blanket, as they must allow for individual circumstances to be considered.

In R v Secretary for the Environment, ex parte Brent LBC (1982), the court ruled that while a Minister can have a policy in mind, they need to be open to considering individual factors when making decisions.

In British Oxygen v Board of Trade (1971), the Board of Trade had a policy of not awarding grants for items costing less than £25. Although British Oxygen's application was rejected because their items cost less than £25, the policy was upheld because it was within the Board's discretion. The court determined that the policy was reasonable to prevent an overwhelming influx of applications.

In Ex parte Collymore (1994), a policy on student grants was deemed illegitimate as it had never resulted in an award. The local authority had applied this inflexible policy, overlooking individual applicants' circumstances.

In R v North-West Lancashire Health Authority, ex parte A, D and G (1999), three applicants were refused gender reassignment surgery due to the health authority's rigid policy. The court ruled that individual circumstances should have been considered.

In R (Luton BC and others) v Secretary of State for Education (2011), the Secretary of State cancelled funding for a school project due to a rigidly applied policy. The court deemed that the minister should have considered individual project merits and that the project funding should have been reconsidered.

Usually, a public body is not allowed to delegate its decision-making power to another body or person. This is to ensure that decisions are made by the body entrusted with the power by Parliament.

In Lavender v Minister of Housing and Local Government (1964), the Minister of Housing refused planning permission due to objections raised by the Minister of Agriculture. This was considered an unlawful delegation of discretion because the Minister of Housing should have made the final decision, not defer to another minister.

There are statutory exceptions that allow public bodies to delegate decision-making power. This is when the statutory framework explicitly allows for delegation.

A policy adopted by Swindon PCT for breast cancer treatment where some women were funded and others were not based on 'exceptional circumstances'. This was found to be irrational by the court.

A case involving Bank Mellat, an Iranian bank, where the Treasury prohibited UK financial institutions from dealing with them due to concerns about Iran's nuclear program. The court found this action unlawful because it was irrational and disproportionate.

A case involving the Parole Board's decision to release John Radford (Worboys), a convicted rapist. While the Board's actions during the hearing were deemed not irrational, their failure to investigate further evidence was seen as unreasonable.

A duty imposed on decision-makers to gather sufficient information before making a decision. It is a key element of a law on rationality, ensuring informed and reasonable decisions.

A case where the court determined that the Justice Secretary had failed to properly inform himself by conducting a public consultation about where Richard III's body should be reburied. This was deemed to violate the Tameside Duty.

Decisions that impose excessive hardship or infringe rights unnecessarily are considered 'oppressive' and unreasonable. They are often deemed unlawful by the courts.

A case involving Leicester Rugby Club, where the local authority imposed a ban on them playing at the City Council's ground due to a planned unofficial tour of South Africa. The ban was deemed oppressive and 'Wednesbury unreasonable.'

A decision made by a public body that is based on illogical or inconsistent reasoning. This type of unreasonableness is more severe than Wednesbury unreasonableness.

Decisions by public bodies should be made in a fair and impartial manner. This means following proper procedures and considering all relevant factors.

Decisions made by public bodies should be proportionate to the reasons for making them. This means ensuring the least amount of harm or interference

Decisions made by public bodies should be based on relevant factors and evidence. This means considering all relevant information objectively.

When courts determine whether the decision-making process was flawed, not necessarily the outcome of the decision.

A specific type of unreasonableness where a decision was based on irrelevant considerations or failed to take important things into account.

A specific type of unreasonableness where a decision was made without sufficient explanation, making it difficult to understand the reasoning behind it.

A specific type of unreasonableness where a decision-maker failed to properly investigate the situation before making a decision.

A test for unreasonableness where the court examines whether the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have reached it.

A case where a local authority's decision to evict travellers from land was deemed unreasonable because it failed to consider the travellers' needs and the consequences of their eviction.

A case where the Secretary of State's decision to appoint two loyalists to the Parades Commission was found unreasonable because it undermined the Commission's neutrality.

A case where a Secretary of State's decision to reject a planning application was unreasonable because it relied on flimsy reasoning and lacked proper explanation.

A case where the Secretary of State's decision to refuse a couple's adoption request was found reasonable even though they were rejected despite being deemed suitable.

A case where a health authority's general policy towards gender reassignment surgery was found unlawful because it was unreasonable and unfairly restricted access to the procedure.

A decision that is so unreasonable that it goes beyond the bounds of what is considered acceptable, often violating fundamental principles.

A situation where a decision-making process is flawed, even if the decision itself may appear sensible.

A situation where a decision is considered unreasonable because it fails to properly balance relevant factors, giving undue weight to one side over others.

A decision-making process characterized by a lack of clarity and reasoning, making it difficult to understand the logic behind it.

The obligation to investigate a situation thoroughly when making a decision, failing to do so can make the decision unreasonable.

When a decision-maker fails to consider relevant factors or considers irrelevant ones, it can be labeled as unreasonable under 'Wednesbury Unreasonableness'.

When a decision-maker makes a decision that is inconsistent with the treatment of others in similar situations, it can be considered unreasonable.

The boundaries of a legal rule should be clear enough to avoid confusion for people affected by the rule. If the rule is ambiguous, it can be argued as unreasonable.

The intensity of review refers to the level of scrutiny the courts will apply when assessing a decision-maker's actions.

Decisions concerning fundamental rights like freedom of speech or privacy will receive higher scrutiny from the courts than those involving broader policy issues.

Courts are usually reluctant to intervene in policy decisions made by elected officials, as they are considered to be more accountable to the public.

Courts are more likely to intervene to protect fundamental rights because they are considered experts in this area and have a strong duty to uphold them.

The courts' approach to judicial review is influenced by both the need to respect democratic processes and their obligation to protect individual rights.

The Wednesbury standard sets a very high bar for a decision to be considered unreasonable. Only decisions that are truly outrageous and illogical are likely to be overturned.

Over time, the courts have modified the Wednesbury standard to allow for greater scrutiny in certain situations, especially when fundamental rights are at stake.

Courts are generally reluctant to overturn decisions concerning broad social and economic policy matters, deferring to the expertise of elected officials.

Even though the Wednesbury standard is still applied for policy decisions, it is not necessarily a rigid formula and can be interpreted flexibly depending on the circumstances.

The intensity of review helps determine the degree of intervention by the courts in a decision-making process.

A more recent legal principle that emphasizes proportionality and requires a more detailed and specific assessment of how a decision affects individual rights.

The Supreme Court's most direct engagement with proportionality, where they emphasized its potentially greater precision but noted it could be applied with varying intensity.

The legal principle that suggests courts should only replace Wednesbury unreasonableness with proportionality after thorough consideration and debate.

The opinion that the Supreme Court should provide clear and structured guidance for lower courts on how to apply proportionality, moving beyond vague concepts.

The idea that proportionality should not just apply to human rights cases but be a general test for all public decisions.

The argument that proportionality is not a separate principle from Wednesbury but rather a more precise application of it.

Decisions where political considerations outweigh judicial review, except in extreme cases.

Lord Steyn's view that the proportionality approach, while often yielding similar results to Wednesbury, requires a more intense level of scrutiny.

Decisions made on political grounds, leaving them largely outside the domain of judicial review. Unless a clear abuse of power is evident.

The fact that the proportionality test can be applied with varying degrees of intensity, depending on the context and importance of the legal issue.

The principle that courts should not intervene in allocating limited resources, even if it leads to hardship cases.

A stricter standard of review applied to administrative decisions affecting fundamental rights or human rights.

A rigorous legal examination of administrative decisions that may endanger someone's life.

The principle that decisions concerning high military policy (i.e., national security, operations) are less likely to be subject to judicial review.

The idea that decisions on membership and rights within the armed forces may be reviewed, as long as they do not involve sensitive military operations.

A possible future ground for judicial review, as suggested by Lord Diplock, applying a stricter, proportionate approach to administrative decisions.

Ensuring that the means used to achieve a legitimate aim are not overly restrictive or unnecessary, striking a balance between the goal and individual rights.

A potential new ground for judicial review, where courts analyze the proportionality of a decision, even when ECHR rights are not directly involved.