Topic

‘Structuring Substantive Review’

Author/Academic

Rebecca Williams

Viewpoint

This article examines, with reference to cases such as the Supreme Court ruling in R (on the application of Keyu) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the debate over whether Wednesbury grounds of review should be replaced by proportionality. Suggests why neither approach optimizes predictability of review, and argues for a focus on the substance of what is allegedly wrong in the decision, and how intensively it should be reviewed.

Source

[2017] Public Law 99–123

Topic

‘From Wednesbury Unreasonableness to Accountability for Reasonableness’

Author/Academic

Daniel Wei L Wang

Viewpoint

This article highlights the role the courts have played in altering social policy on the rationing of NHS health care. It comments on the gradual transition from an approach based on Wednesbury unreasonableness to one incorporating the conditions for ‘accountability for reasonableness’.

Topic

‘Outcomes Aren’t All: Defending Process-Based Review of Public Authority Decisions Under the Human Rights Act’

Author/Academic

David Mead

Viewpoint

Evaluates the approach adopted by the House of Lords in its judgments in R (on the application of Begum) v Denbigh High School Governors, Belfast City Council v Miss Behavin’ Ltd, and R (on the application of Nasseri) v Secretary of State for the Home Department that, where a public authority measure has been challenged under the Human Rights Act 1998 for being disproportionate, it is sufficient for the authority to show that it had proportionate outcomes, known as the ‘outcomes is all’ approach, rather than that its proportionality was addressed during the decision-making process.

Source

[2012] Public Law 64–84