amenability to judicial review Flashcards
Where did judicial review originate from and why?
Judicial review originated as a remedy against lower courts, as it is part of the function of the superior courts to control the judicial processes of the lower courts.
What are the lower courts and what happens in one of these courts acts in excess of its jurisdiction ?
The lower courts include the District court and the Circuit court. If one of these courts acts in excess of its jurisdiction, it can be judicially reviewed in the superior courts.
what did lord akin recognise in the case of R v Electricity Commissioner [1924]
In R v Electricity Commissioner [1924] Lord Akin recognised that judicial review was not just confined to courts of justice but could apply to any body with authority under statue.
Why are more bodies now reviewed than was originally the case ?
To test to see whether a body’s decision can be judicially reviewed has developed over time, allowing more bodies to be reviewed than was originally the case.
What did the courts do traditionally to decide if judicial review was available as a remedy?
Traditionally when deciding if judicial review was available as a remedy the courts examined the relationship between the applicant and the decision maker to determine the source of the decision-maker’s power.
When if the decision a private law matter?
If the applicant had voluntarily submitted to the authority of the decision maker then the source of the decision maker’s power was a private law matter, and public law remedies such as judicial review were not available.
What are the facts of the case State (Colquhoun) v D’Arcy [1936] ?
In State (Colquhoun) v D’Arcy [1936], It was found that a decision by the Court of the General Synod of the Church of Ireland to discipline a minister was not subject to judicial review, as that court derived its authority solely from the consent or agreement of the church members rather than from a statue.
What were the high court’s findings in the case of State (Colquhoun) v D’Arcy [1936] ?
The High court found that judicial review would only issue to a court , tribunal or body of persons that
- Has a duty to act judicially;
- Has authority to impose liabilities or to determine questions who affect the rights of individuals, and;
- Derives authority from statute or common law.
What were the facts of the case in Murphy v Turf [1989] ?
In Murphy v Turf [1989], the applicant was a racehorse trainer seeking to review a decision by the horse racing governing body to reduce his training licence. This decision effectively terminated his ability to earn a livelihood.
What did the court find in the case of Murphy v Turf [1989] ?
The court found that the relationship between the applicant and the respondent derived solely from contract and that the respondent’s duty to regulate the sport of horse racing in Ireland, although it has a pubic dimension was not a public duty. Therefore, the decision could not be judicially reviewed as the applicant had voluntarily submitted to the respondent’s jurisdiction.
How has the courts approach changed over time in the case of Murphy v Turf [1989] ?
The courts approach has changed over time. The source of power is still important but it no longer completely determines the issue. The courts now also look at the nature of the power and, in particular, whether there is a public element to the decision. A decision can have a public element even if only one person is affected by it
What are the facts of the case Beirne v Commissioner of An Garda Siochana [1993] ?
Beirne v Commissioner of An Garda Siochana [1993]. In that case, the applicant was a trainee Garda whose assignment was terminated because of alleged misconduct. He claimed the investigation into the alleged misconduct breached his right to a fair procedures as he had not been given a chance to contradict allegations made to cross-examine the people who had made the statements against him.
Was judicial review available in the case of Beirne v Commissioner of An Garda Siochana [1993] and why ?
Even though the Commissioner’s power to discipline and dismiss the applicant came from Contract, it was clear that the power also cae from the office that the Commissioner held, and the statutory powers attached to it. Even though there was a strong contractual element to the relationship, Judicial review was available due to this public element.
The “public element” test was elaborated on in Eogan v UCD [1996]. In that case, what number of factors were identified when deciding if a decision could be subject to judicial review ?
(a) whether the decision challenged has been made pursuant to a statute
(b) whether the decision maker, by its decision is performing a duty relating to a matter of particular and immediate public concern, and therefore falling within the public domain.
(c) where the decision affects a contract of employment whether that employment has any statutory protection so as to afford the employee any “public rights’ upon which he may rely;and
(d) whether the decision is being made by a decision maker whose powers, though not directly based on statue, depend on approval by the legislature or the Government for their continued exercise.
what are the facts of the case Geoghegan v Institute of Chartered Accountants [1995].
The applicant had sought to restrain professional misconduct disciplinary proceedings by the Institute of Chartered Accountants.
