2) Illegality Flashcards

1
Q

Fundamental principle of Administrative Law

A

A public body is not entitled to act in excess of its powers
Ultra Vires

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Illegality as described in GCHQ

A

Decision maker must understand correctly that the law regulates his decision-making powers and must give effect to it.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Name the subcategories of Illegality

A

1) Simple Illegality (Ultra vires)
2) Errors of law
3) Errors of fact
4) Relevant and Irrelevant considerations
5) Improper purpose
6) Fettering discretion
7) Unlawful delegation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Simple Illegality

A

Ultra vires
eg Parking Steward arresting someone…

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Attorney General v Fulham Corporation

Simple illegality

A

Local authority had the power to provide washhouses for residents.
But was not empowered to provide paid laundry services.
acted outside of the four corners of the Act

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Westminster Corp v London & NE Railway

Intra vires

A

Will not have acted unlawfully if did something reasonably incidental to a power that they do have.
Power to build lavatories –> a power to build public lavatories.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Principle of legality

A

Presumption that Parliament did not intend to authorize the infringement of fundamental or constitutional rights without very specific statutory authorisation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Key cases to adopt the “legality” approach

A

R v SoS for Home Dept, ex parte Leech (No2)
R v SoS for Home Dept, ex parte Simms
R v Lord Chancellor, ex parte Witham

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

R v Lord Chancellor, ex parte Witham

Illegality

A

Parent Act did not authorise the Lord Chancellor to set court fees at such high level that access to the courts was effectively denied.
Statutory Instrument setting fees = Ultra Vires

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Error of Law - Key Case

A

Anisiminic - HoL ruled the Foreign Compensation Commission had misunderstood the rules of the compensation scheme that it was supposed to be implementing.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Error of Law

A

Extension of ultra vires
After Ansiminic, no longer only reviewable only as a question of jurisdiction.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Exceptions to the reviewability of errors of law

A
  • Where the error of law is not decisive to the decision
  • When the decision-maker is interpreting some special system of rules
  • Where the power granted is couched in terms that are so imprecise, they are capable of multiple interpretations.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Exceptions to the reviewability of errors of law
Where the error of law is not decisive to the decision

A

Decisive means that but for the error concerned, the decision would have been different.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Exceptions to reviewability of errors of law
When the decision-maker is interpreting some special system of rules

A

Courts are often unwilling to intervene with statutes of a university for instance.

Key Case: Ex parte Page

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

R v Lord President of the Privy Council, ex parte Page

Case confirmed that….

A

Case confirmed that all errors of law are potentially reviewable;

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Are courts willing to review decisions made by an inferior court?

A

Often courts are unwilling to review decisions made by inferior courts on the basis of an error of law where Parliament had expressly provided that the decision of a judge at first instance was to be final

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Will Courts review a decision made by a superior court on the basis of an error of law?

A

No, they will not entertatin an application for the judicial review of decisions such as that of the High Court

Re Racal Communications Ltd

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Re Racal Communications Ltd

A

Will not entertain the judicial review of a Superior Court

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Exceptions
Imprecise powers - Key Case

Error of law

A

ex parte South Yorkshire Transport Ltd

HoL considered how to interpret the phrase “a substantial part of the United Kingdom”
* Substantial can accommodate a wide range of meanings.
* Differing decision makers may reach differing conclusions.
* Court should not intervene unless decision-makers conclusion was irrational

Court should not intervene if imprecise meaning - unless decision-makers conclusion was irrational

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

R(Forge Care Homes Ltd) v Cardiff and Vale University Health Board

Error in law

A

Health Board had misinterpreted s 49 of Health and Social Care Act 2001.
* Funding of residents in care homes
* Too restrictive an application, should have covered care provided by registered nurses. = An error in law.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What are the three types of errors of Fact that are susceptible to Judicial Review.

A

Precedent Facts
No evidence of Facts
Ignorance or Mistake of an Established Fact.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What are precedent facts?

A

When a decision makers power to decide on a particular matter (their jurisdiction) depends on making an initial finding of fact

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Key cases relating of precedent facts?

A
  • White and Colins v MoH
  • ex parte Khawaja
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

White and Collins v Minister of Health

A

CoA held that it could review the LA decision to compulsorily purchase a piece of land - the land was already part of a park.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
R v SoS for Home Department, ex parte Khawaja
The court found that it could review the factual question of whether the claimant was an **illegal entrant**. This had to be shown by the SoS to give rise to the power to detain.
26
No evidence for fact - Key case
Coleen Properties v MoH and Local Government
27
No evidence rule
Finding of fact in which a decision is based is not supported by any evidence, then can overturn the decision | Errors of fact
28
Coleen Properties v MoH and Local Government
The case concerned a decision to make a CPO on a property. LA wanted to re develop the adjacent area- **but "not reasonably necessary**" for the satisfactory development or use of the cleared area to acquire the property.
29
Coleen Properties v MoH and Local Government HELD
Minister had confirmed the decision without any evidence to challenge the finding made in the inspectors report. CPO set aside. ## Footnote Illegality - mistake of fact - no evidence
30
Ignorance or mistake of an established fact - Key cases
SoS for Education v Tameside MBC
31
SoS for Education v Tameside MBC
Education Sec halted reintroduction fo grammar schools, believed this would lead to education in chaos and disruption. No evidence or fact / jumped to conclusions
32
What did the law lords find in CICB, ex parte A?
Four of the law lords accepted obiter that **a mistake of fact could be a ground for review**
33
What were the findings of CICB, ex parte A?
Inaccurate findings from medical exam, determining whether injuries were from rape. Whilst this case was determined on the basis of breach of natural justice rules - found that could have been decided on mistake
34
What did E v SSHHD clarify?
Established conclusively that judicial review can be sought on the basis of mistaken fact. **Mistake of fact, giving rise to unfairness.** **Must give rise to unfairness.**
35
What must a mistake of fact lead to in order to be reviewable?
It must have caused **unfairness**.
36
Four part test in E v SSHHD ?
1) Mistake of **existing fact** 2) Fact or evidence must have been **established** 3) Appellant **must not have been responsible** 4) Mistake must have played a **material (not decisive) part in decision makers reasoning**.
37
What is meant by the fact or evidence must have been "established" ?
Must have been uncontentious and objectively verifiable.
38
WHat is meant by "relevant and irrelevant considerations"?
Decision makers can act unlawfully if they fail to take into account relevant considerations, or take into account irrelevant considerations
39
What is a key cases relating to Relevant nd irrelevant decisions
* Ex Parte Fewings * Ex Parte Venables and Thompson
40
What are the three kinds of considerations which may present themselves to a decision maker? | Relevant and irrelevant decisions
1) Mandatory factors 2) Prohibitory factors 3) Discretionary factors
41
Mandatory factors | Relevant and irrelevant decisions
Those expressly or impliedly identified by the statute to which regard **must** be had.
42
Prohibitory factors | Relevant and irrelevant decisions
Those identified by the statute to which regard **must not** be had.
43
Discretionary factors | Relevant and irrelevant decisions
Those which a decision maker **may** have regard to in their judgment and discretion is right to do so.
44
Are decisions that fail to take into account mandatory factors, or do take into account prohibitory facts unlawful? | Relevant and irrelevant decisions
Yes. Extending **ultra vires**, the **decision makers are not complying** with the statutory decision makers given to them.
45
Cann decisionmakers take into account discretionary factors? | Relevant and irrelevant decisions
Yes, so long as not acting unlawfully.
46
Who decides which factors or considerations are relevant? | Relevant and irrelevant decisions
This is the role of the court Full and Proper construction of statutory regime and interpretative guidance
47
ex parte Venables and Thompson | Relevant and irrelevant decisions
Home Secretary set minimum tarrif sentences at 15 years each, 5 years longer than Lord Chief Justice recommendations ON review HS tariffs quashed for acting in **quasi-judicial** capacity and taking into account **emotive/public clamour** Failed to take into account the welfare of the setnenced children
48
Roberts v Hopwood | Relevant and irrelevant decisions
Local authority failed to consider a relevant factor when increasing wages for low wage workers to above the market rate. **No regard to interests of ratepayers**
49
R v Gloucester County Council, ex parte Barry | Relevant and irrelevant decisions
LA's paucity of resources = relevant factor in assessing needs of disabled persons, Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 May not always be the case - depends on the construction of the statute
50
R v East Sussex County Council, ex parte Tandy | Relevant and irrelevant decisions
Councils decision to reduce home tuition for a child unable to attend school for health reasons **because of fianacial constraints** was quashed by the law lords. Under the Education Act 1993, the local authority must determine suitable provision with regard only to the educational needs of the child.
51
Overlap between unreasonableness and relevancy of considerations
There is an overlap with unreasonableness, may quash on these grounds as they relate to the weighing of or competing of relevant factors
52
Improper purpose definition
Decision maker ought to only use a power given to it by Parliament for the purpose that it was given that power. eg **Ex Parte Fewings** - regulating land use was not to enforce ethical / political concerns for local councillors.
53
Padfield v Minister of Agriculture
Minister refused to refer a complaint to committee of investigation, as he believed he would be embarrassed by unfavourable report - despite having the power. Discretion was for a wrongful or improper purpose
54
Will a statute always clearly indicate the purpose of the powers granted?
No the courts have the power to **imply a purpose**
55
Congreve v Home Office
The **Implied purpose** of the power to revoke TV licenses was not to raise revenue, but to ensure licenses were not wrongfully used / obtained. Congreve's licenses should not have been revoked because he had bought it before the licence fee increase.
56
Miranda v SoS for the Home Department
Powers used for police in Terrorism Act 2000 s7 were **not carried out for the purpose of statute**, to determine whether the person stopped and questioned was involved in acts of terrorism. Believed powers instead was being **misused to access the material** believed to be held. ## Footnote Illegality - Improper purpose
57
Fettering of discretion - definition
Public body acts in a way that **hampers its own ability to properly exercise a discretionary power**. Most basic way is where it effectively decides not to exercise this power at all.
58
R v SoS for Home Dept, ex parte Fire Brigades Union | Fettering of discretion
Parliament created a statutory criminal injuries compensation scheme. The relevant provisions only came into force on such a day as the SoS may appoint. Home Secretary later stated that the statutory scheme would not be brought into force, and a new scheme would be used instead. **HS could not bind himself not to exercise the discretion by introducing an inconsistent scheme, using prerogative powers**
59
Policies and fettering of discretion
Courts will not allow a decision maker to "bind" or "fetter" it's discretion by **adopting a rigid or "blanket" policy** so that the outcome is decided in advance, or without proper exercise of discretion
60
R v Secretary for the Environment, ex parte Brent
" The Minister is entitled to have in mind his policy. To the extent the reference to keeping an open mind does not mean an empty mind. **His mind must be kept ajar**" | Fettering of discretion
61
British Oxygen v Board of Trade
BoT had a policy of not awarding grants on items bought that individiually cost less than £25. Item bought = £20 Policy was in BoT's discretion, not to be overwhelmed by trivial applications. Evidence that BoT had considered the application carefully **Not unlawful**
62
Ex Parte Collymore
Policy on student grants although flexibly worded, had never resulted in an award, despite 300 appeals. Unlawful fettering of discretion as LA had applied policy inflexibly.
63
R v North West Lancashire Health Authority, ex parte A, D and G
Refused gender reassignment on the basis of an overly rigid application of policy. **Did not consider applicants individual circumstances** | Fettering of discretion
64
R (Luton BC and others) v SoS for Education
SoS cancelled funding for the project, "Building Schools for the Future" While minister was entitled to adopt rules each individual project should have been considered on its own merits, **Instead was applied rigidly.** **Court asked that the matters were considered with an open mind**
65
Unlawful delegation of discretion
Where a public body is empowered to make a decision by an Act of Parliament the general rule is that it is **not normally allowed to delgate** that discretion to another body or person. This would be contrary to the intention fo parliament.
66
Lavender v Minister of Housing and Local Government
Refused Lavender's application to grant PP to develop land for use as a quarry after hearing objections from the Minister of Agriculture. Decision was challenged on **grounds of abdication of decision.**
67
What are the exceptions to the general principle on delegation of discretion
1) Statutory Exceptions 2) Common Law exceptions
68
Statutory Exceptions to the delegation of discretion principles
s101, LGA 1972 Some statutes will expressly allow the decision maker to delegate decision-making powers to someone else. **s101 of the Local Government Act 1972**: Authorises LA to arrange for their functions to be carried out by committees, council officers or another LA
69
Common law exceptions (the Carltona principle) to the delegation of discretion principle
Where discretion is conferred on a gov minister, the courts will presume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the **minister is allowed to delegat**e discretions to officials in his department, even if the statute doesnt expressly say so. **MInister remains politically accountable**
70
DPP v Haw
When an office such as Chief Constable is created by statute and the responsibilities of office are such that delegation is inevitable there will be an **implied power to delegate** Although must be delegated to **an appropriate level of seniority** | Carltona Principle Extended
71
R ( Chief Constable of West Midlands Police) v Birmingham Justices
Court accepted that a public office holder such as a Chief Constable, could discharge all but the most important of their functions through **suitable subordinates** for whom they are **responsible and answerable** | Carltona Principle Extend
72
R v SoS for the Home Department, ex parte Oladehinde
Decision to deport immigrants could be made by Immigration Inspectors as they were civil servants. **Decision to deport must be taken by a person of suitable seniority at the Home Office, for whom the HS accepts responsibility** | Carltona Principle Extend
73
R(Bourgass) v SoS or Justice
Removal for solitary confinement wihtout SoS authority. Not delegation as **not sufficiently close link** between prison and authority. | Carltona Principle Extend
74
Cases for: Relevancy of Considerations
Fewings Venables and Thompson
75
Cases for: Improper Use
Congreve Fewings Padfield
76
Cases for: Fettering of discretion
* Fire Brigades Union - abdication of power * Brent; British Oxygen; Collymore
77
Cases for: Unlawful delegation
Carltona Oladehinde s101 LGA
78