irrationality

Question 1

define briefly irrationality

Answer 1

administrative action may be irrational if no valid reason supports the exercise of power

Question 2

3 cases under modern wednesbury

Answer 2

1. Wednesbury Corporation
2. Rogers v Swindon
3. Re Duffy

Question 3

2 cases for super wednesbury

Answer 3

1. ex parte nottinghamshire
2. ex parte B

Question 4

2 cases for sub wednesbury

Answer 4

1. bugdaycay
2. ex parte smith

Question 5

Re Duffy

Answer 5

• modern wednesbury
• NI parades

Question 6

ex parte nottinghamshire

Answer 6

• super wednesbury
• allocation of budgets

Question 7

modern wednesbury test

Answer 7

A decision so unreasonable that no reasonable public authority would have come to it then the court can interfere

Question 8

wednesbury decision

Answer 8

not irrational
- not what the courts think is unreasonable because they will have a different opinion. If it is what the court considers unreasonable, the court may
very well have different views to that of a local authority on matters of high public policy of this kind. Some courts might think that no children ought to be admitted on Sundays at all, some courts might think the reverse, and all over the country I have no doubt on a thing of that sort honest and sincere people hold different views. The effect of the legislation is not to set up the court as an arbiter of the correctness of one view over another. It is the local authority that are set in that position and, provided they act, as they have acted, within the four corners of their jurisdiction, this court, in my opinion, cannot interfere

Question 9

Lord Bridge quote in ex parte nottinghamshire

Answer 9

generally suspicious of a rationality as a head of judicial review, which extends beyond basic review of whether a decision is legal within the four corners of a power
- decisions involving political, financial or expert judgement, are for politicians and to be properly debated in the House of Lords
- if a decision made in good faith, and within the four corners of the law courts will be exceeding their proper function if they said the policy was unreasonable

Question 10

wednesbury corporation case

Answer 10

• modern wednesbury
• cinemas on sundays

Question 11

rogers v swindon

Answer 11

• modern wednesbury
• prescription drug

Question 12

ex parte B

Answer 12

• super wednesbury
• operations on an ill child

Question 13

Thomas Bingham in Ex Parte B

Answer 13

• if they express on effectiveness of medical treatment, they would be straying far from what is accorded to us by the constitution
• the greater impact on the individual the more substantial a justification is required

Question 14

Budaycay

Answer 14

• sub wednesbury
• immigration case

Question 15

ex parte smith

Answer 15

• sub wednesbury
  -military

Question 16

Smith and Grady

Answer 16

• move case taken to ECHR after exhausting domestic remedies

Question 17

Daly

Answer 17

• policy requiring they should leave their cells to be searches
• court accepted that in human rights cases proportionality should replace Wednesbury

Question 18

Quila

Answer 18

• immigration rules by Home Secretary

Question 19

bank mellat proportionality test

Answer 19

1. Object measure is sufficiently important to justify the limitation of a protected, right
2. Rationally connected to the objective
3. Whether a less intrusive measure could’ve been used without unacceptable, compromising the achievement of the objective
4. Severity of the measures affect on the rights of the person to whom it applies against the importance of the objective

Question 20

sub wednesbury test ex parte smith

Answer 20

in judging whether the decision-maker has exceeded this margin of appreciation the human rights context is important. The more substantial the interference with human rights, the more the court will require by way of justification before it is satisfied that the decision is reasonable in the sense outlined above.

Question 21

order of wednesbury

Answer 21

modern
super
sub