JR - Unreasonableness

Question 1

Can the court interfere on ground of unreasonableness just because it holds a different view as a matter of policy to the of the relevant public body?

Answer 1

No

Question 2

How has the unreasonability test been formulated?

Answer 2

• ‘…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 … 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’
• ‘It applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it.’
• decision no reasonable authority could reach

Question 3

What are the three main classes of areas of unreasonableness that have been identified by the courts?

Answer 3

• material defects in the decision-making process
• oppressive decisions
• decisions that violate constitutional principles

Question 4

What are material defects in the decision making process?

Answer 4

Defects which do not amount to illegality but are serious enough to render a decision flawed.

Can be subdivided into:

• wrongly weighing-up relevant factors
• failure to provide a comprehensive chain of reasoning - ‘irrationality’

Question 5

What will amount to wrongly weighing up relevant factors as part of material defect in the decision making process?

Answer 5

Traveller case

• LA under duty to provide traveller sites in area but failed to do so or attempted to do
• found that no reasonable LA would have placed more weight on the fact that there would be delay to reclaiming the land, while temporary sites were found, over:

(i) effects of eviction on the travellers themselves and

(ii) the impact on those who were likely to be affected elsewhere by the travellers trespassing in the meantime

Orange order loyalist case

• appointing two prominent loyalists to independent, objective and impartial mediator of the Parades commission was unreasonable

Question 6

What is failure to provide comprehensive chain of reasoning in relation to unreasonableness?

Answer 6

Where decision-maker’s decision is so unreasonable it verges on irrational

Question 7

What is unreasonableness due to oppressive decisions?

Answer 7

Decision will impose excessive hardship or represent infringement of rights which is deemed unnecessary

Eg penalty for legal behaviour = unreasonably punitive

Eg decision excessive and disproportionate impact

Question 8

What is unreasonableness due to decisions that violate constitutional principles?

Answer 8

Decisions that contradict principles of consistency and certainty can be held to unreasonable, as they represent arbitrary decision-making and can lead to inequality before the law.

Question 9

How will the degree of scrutiny the court is willing to give change depending on the decision in dispute in relation to unreasonableness?

Answer 9

• decision relating to fundamental or human rights are subject to more intense review
• broader questions of policy will be less closely scrutinised