Grounds for JR - Unreasonableness/Irrationality Flashcards
How may unreasonableness or irrationality ground an action for judicial review?
Unreasonableness is a particular type of abuse of discretion and may take the decision-maker outside their authority.
Why is the unreasonableness ground of judicial review potentially controversial?
If the court is put in the position of assessing whether a decision-maker acted ‘unreasonably’ or not, is the court substituting its opinion for that of the initial decision-maker? I.e. does this blur the distinction between review and appeal?
How does the unreasonable ground of judicial review arguably contradict the traditional focus of administrative law?
Administrative law has traditionally focused more on the manner in which decisions are made, rather than the merits of the decisions themselves. Unreasonableness can potentially push us into the area of substantive review.
What level of error/unreasonableness is required for court intervention?
In principle, the doctrine requires a high level of error or flaws in the decision for the court to intervene. But the doctrine has been refined over the years and can operate in a more or less rigorous manner according to context and constitutional principle.
Which case gave rise to the concept of Wednesbury unreasonableness?
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation
What were the details of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation?
The defendant was empowered by legislation to allow cinemas to open on Sundays ‘subject to such conditions as the authority think fit to impose’. The defendant sought to use this discretion to allow the claimant to open its cinema ‘provided that no children under 15 were admitted to Sunday performances’. The claimant argued such a restriction was ultra vires.
What did Lord Greene say in regards to Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation?
“It is true to say that, if a decision on a competent matter is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it, then the courts can interfere… but to prove a case of that kind would require something overwhelming, and, in this case, the facts do not come anywhere near anything of that kind.”
What was the key concern of Lord Greene when commenting on Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation?
Lord Greene’s main concern was to constrain the role of the Court, emphasising that it is not the courts’ task to retake merits decisions that the decision-maker is empowered to take. This underpins the extreme language of ‘Wednesbury unreasonableness’ and is aligned to the high threshold set out for judicial interference.
What did Lord Diplock do in the GCHQ Case?
- Replaced the language of unreasonableness with irrationality
- Clarified the concept of ‘Wednesbury unreasonableness’
- Clarified irrationality as a ground for judicial review
“By ‘irrationality’ I mean what can now be succinctly referred to as ‘Wednesbury unreasonableness’… it applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it.”
“Irrationality by now can stand upon its own feet as an accepted ground on which a decision may be attacked by judicial review.”
Why is a restrained approach adopted in relation to irrationality as a ground for judicial review?
Irrationality can amount to substantive review which is problematic because of:
- Constitutional Imperative - Parliament intends the power to be exercised by the authority to which it is entrusted.
- Lack of judicial expertise
- Democratic Imperative - relevant to elected public authorities, e.g. local authorities, who derive their authority in part from their electoral mandate.
In which three cases has irrationality/unreasonableness been successfully used to ground judicial review actions?
- R v Bow St Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate ex p. DPP - Magistrates’ finding of abuse of process in delayed prosecution was unreasonable- no prosecution malpractice on facts.
- R v SS Home Dept. Ex p Cox - Effect of minor conviction on ineligibility for parole of re-called murderer was unreasonable.
- R (Asiv Javed v Secretary of State for the Home Department) - Secretary of State’s determination of fact on the risk of persecution of women in Pakistan was so unsupportable as to be perverse.
How does the test for ‘unreasonableness’ vary?
In some instances, the court will depart from the usual test of ‘Wednesbury Unreasonableness’ to subject a decision to greater or lesser scrutiny.
What is super wednesbury unreasonableness?
This is a variation on the standard ‘wednesbury unreasonableness’ test that involves a weaker review of the decision-maker’s use of discretion.
Which case demonstrates the use of the super wednesbury unreasonableness test?
Nottinghamshire CC v Secretary of State for the Environment
What were the details of Nottinghamshire CC v Secretary of State for the Environment?
There was a decision by the Environment Secretary which resulted in the imposition of fines on local authorities which he regarded as wasteful.
The Court held that it should only intervene if the consequences of his decision ‘were so absurd that he must have taken leave of his senses’. This represents a different (less stringent) level of unreasonableness to that laid out under ‘wednesbury unreasonableness’.
