Grounds for JR - procedural impropriety

Question 1

Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Jeyeanthan

Answer 1

Express procedural ultra vires - “may vs “shall” in legislative drafting is not as clear as this - even if something is directory (may), the context of the legislation may actually mean it is mandatory (shall) and a directory requirement may therefore be procedurally ultra vires if it is not complied with

Question 2

Soneji

Answer 2

Express procedural ultra vires - Emphasis is on the consequences of non-compliance and whether Parliament would have intended total invalidity of whole decision by failure to comply and the consequences this gives rise to

Question 3

Ridge v Baldwin

Answer 3

Inplied rules of natural justice - originally the implied rules of rule against bias and right to a fair hearing were thought only to apply to ‘judicial’ decisions rather than ‘administrative’ ones but the ruling overturned the distinction and confirmed that natural justice potentially applies to all decisions by public bodies. It involved the firing of a Chief Constable of the police after his acquittal in a criminal trial, which was done without a hearing. This was ruled against the laws of natural justice and particularly the right to a fair hearing

Question 4

Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Harry

Answer 4

Implied rules of natural justice - right to a fair hearing. The more fundamental a right at issue, the more important a full hearing is. Context is key in deciding whether a fair hearing has been achieved

Question 5

Board of Visitors of Wormwood Scrubs ex parte Anderson

Board of Visitors of Maze Prison ex parte Horne

Answer 5

Implied rules of natural justice - right to legal representation. Not necessarily a given that this is a right, depends on context. In both cases, prisoners were charged with crimes within prison and denied right to representation. In Anderson, the charge was serious (mutiny) and so it was unlawful to deny representation whereas in Horne it was less so (assault) so not unlawful

Question 6

Cannock Chase District Council v Kelly

Answer 6

Implied rules of natural justice - giving of reasons. No common law requirement for reasons to be given generally, although statute can make it an express requirement (although generally it is now accepted that better quality decisions stem from giving reasons)

Question 7

HIgher Education Funding Council ex parte Institute of Dental SUrgery

Answer 7

Implied rules of natural justice - giving of reasons. Acknowledging Cannock Chase District Council v Kelly (that there is no general requirement for reasons), there may in fact be times when reasons are required such as

• where subject matter is important (e.g. libert)
• Where decision is very unexpected
• where the decsion can only be challenged by reasons

Question 8

Saadi v UK

Answer 8

Implied rules of natural justice - giving of reasons. Reasons must be given timely

Question 9

Stefan v GMC

Answer 9

Implied rules of natural justice - giving of reasons. Moving towards a rule that there IS in fact a requirement to give reasons, as there was a suggestion that not doing so could breach Art 6 rights

Question 10

Dimes v Grand Junction Canal Co

Answer 10

Implied rules of natural justice - rule against bias. Actual bias means decisions are automatically disqualified. Usually difficult to show, but financial interest is enough. Here, judge heard a case involving a company in which he was a substantial shareholder

Question 11

Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 2)

Answer 11

Implied rules of natural justice - rule against bias. Decision to extradite General Pinochet, and one of the parties to the proceedings was Amnesty International. One of the law lords later turned out to be director of a separate but related part of Amnesty International. The decision was therefore biased and had to be overturned automatically

Question 12

Gough

Answer 12

Implied rules of natural justice - rule against bias. Modern test of bias when alleged is whether there is a real danger of it given the circumstances (no need to show that it actually affected the outcome)

Question 13

Secretary of State for the Environment and Another ex parte Kirkstall Valley Campaign

Answer 13

Implied rules of natural justice - rule against bias. Gough test for bias (real danger) applies to judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative decision making, as it affects the interests of citizens at all levels

Question 14

Locabail

Answer 14

Implied rules of natural justice - rule against bias. It is unlikely that bias can ever be established solely on the basis of social, poltiical or education background but is possible to establish based on friendships or animosities, and if the judge hears more than once (such as at first instance and on appeal)

Question 15

Inner West London Coroner ex parte Dallaglio

Answer 15

Implied rules of natural justice - rule against bias. The indication of a real possibility of unconcious bias may be sufficient, no need to show actual bias

Question 16

McInnes v Onslow Fane

Answer 16

Implied rules of natural justice generally - the requirements of natural justice depend on the circumstances of the case. If human rights are involved, there is a much higher duty

Question 17

R v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Anufrijeva

Answer 17

Implied rules of natural justice - right to notice. Both notice itself and timely giving of notice are important

Question 18

R v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Hosenball

Answer 18

Implied rules of natural justice - right to notice. National security concerns can override right to notice.

Question 19

R v Home Secretary ex parte Doody

Answer 19

Implied rules of natural justice - giving of reasons. When liberty is at stake, there is an automatic implication that giving of reasons is required