12. Grounds for Judicial Review: Irrationality, Proportionality, Merits-Based Judicial Review, and the Human Rights Act 1998

Irrationality
  • Irrationality means unreasonableness which is now linked to the principle of proportionality.
  • Unreasonableness is a comprehensively used term capable of meaning that a person given a discretionary power has, among other things, reached a conclusion which is so absurd that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it.
  • The key principle is that where an administrative decision is made in the context of human rights the court will require a proportionately greater justification before being satisfied that the decision is within the range of responses open to a reasonable decision-maker, according to the seriousness of the interference with those rights.
Proportionality
  • In the context of human rights it applies where the state can limit rights for legitimate purposes.
  • The state should do no more than is absolutely necessary to achieve the legitimate purpose of limiting the right.
  • Proportionality requires that there must be a reasonable relationship between the objective being sought and the means used to achieve it.
Merits-Based and Procedural Review
  • Procedural review means that judicial review is concerned primarily with the decision-making process as opposed to the correctness of the decision itself. In a judicial review, the reviewer/court must uphold the decision under review, even if they think a different decision would have been better, unless there is a flaw in the process by which the original decision-maker made the decision.
  • Merits-based review is when a reviewer can start from scratch and decide what the right decision should be (which may or may not be the same as the original decision-maker’s decision); they can form their own view of the facts and exercise their own discretion.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Criminal Law Cases

Case Name / Relevancy / Facts / Held Airedale NHS v Bland [1993] Actus Reus: Medical Treatment Doctors were granted approval to remove the feeding tube of Bland who had been left in a vegetative state after an injury suffered by the Hillsborough disaster. It was lawful to withhold life-extending treatment as the doctors have a duty to act in the best interests of their patients. R v Kimsey (1996) Actus Reus: Legal Causation D admitted engaging in a chase but not to trying to overtake just before the accident which left Osbourne dead. The dangerous driving did not have to be considered a ‘substantial’ cause of death but rather a cause of death which was sufficient to convict D. R v Dalloway (1847) Actus Reus: Legal Causation D was not holding on to the reins on a horse and cart which resulted in a child running out into the road was killed by one of the wheels. D was charged for driving in a negligent fashion and causing the death of the c
Read more

Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke [1969] AC 645

Facts: Crown colony of Southern Rhodesia, which had been self-governing since 1923, declared independence from Britain in 1965 British government considered its UDI to be illegal and refused to recognize the legitimacy of the Rhodesian government Before 1965, Madzimbamuto was detained under section 21 of the Regulations Madzimbamuto's wife challenged the legality of her husband's detention, on the grounds that the prolongation of the state of emergency was unlawful Issue: Whether a convention would be enforceable and have legal position of United Kingdom and Southern Rhodesia Held: The case reached the Privy Council who rejected the Rhodesian Minister for Law and Order's argument that because of the convention, the United Kingdom legislation overriding the Rhodesian detention law was invalid
Read more

According to the Terrorism and Immigration Act 2018, all recent refugees arriving in the UK seeking asylum are to be kept detained until their claims are processed and it can be ascertained that they do not pose a terrorist threat. The local detention centres are run by a private firm, ‘Home Away from Home.’ Estela, a recently arrived asylum seeker has been detained in one of the privately run facilities, and has had her room searched regularly by ‘Home Away from Home’ private security guards in case she has any contraband in her possession. As she has to wait outside while they are searching her room, Estela fears that the security guards may go through her private correspondence whilst searching. Advise Estela on any claims she may make on the grounds of the HRA 1998, including reference to any procedural requirements. [Note: This is a hypothetical scenario and the Terrorism and Immigration Act 2018 is not real legislation.]

It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with Convention rights. Estela could argue that these actions were illegal under Article 5 and 8. Estela has sufficient interest in the matter so therefore fulfills this requirement. This Act breaches Convention rights, as the public authorities must act fairly and without bias. Estela could therefore seek judicial review under procedural impropriety, and that the Act is therefore unlawful.
Read more