Public Law Concentrate 5e Resources is no longer available and it was replaced by Public Law Concentrate, 8e.
Chapter 12 Outline answers to essay questions
Chapter 12 Outline answers to essay questions
Grounds for judicial review: irrationality, proportionality, merits-based, and the Human Rights Act
Introduction
You should define proportionality:
There must be a reasonable relationship between the objective being sought and the means used to achieve it.
Then define Wednesbury unreasonableness. Unreasonableness is a comprehensively used term capable of meaning that a person given a discretionary power has:
• not directed himself properly in law;
• has acted in bad faith;
• failed to pay attention to all the matters he is bound to consider;
• based his decision on irrelevant considerations; or
• reached a conclusion which is so absurd that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it.
You should refer to:
• Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948]
• Backhouse v Lambeth LBC (1972)
The development of the unreasonableness principle
In this part of your answer you should discuss the principles laid down in R v Ministry of Defence, ex p Smith [1996].
Proportionality
You should discuss the early cases in which the possibility of proportionality becoming an independent ground of judicial review. The relevant cases are:
• Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985]
• R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Brind [1991]
Then you should discuss:
• R (Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2003]
This principle is applied in cases where the court is:
• asked to consider whether legislation is compatible with Convention rights;
• applying principles of European Union law;
• deciding whether to quash a penalty or punishment;
• asked to review the decision of a public body on the ground that it is unreasonable.