Judicial Review

Question 1

Osbourne v Parole Board (Lord Reed)

Answer 1

1) Convention rights on their own are very general (detailed common law case law delivers the actual right)
2) Domestic law may not live up to convention

3) HRA provides a number of additional instruments that domestic lawyers didn’t previously have
- ECHR is not a separate body
- don’t ignore common law

Question 2

Kennedy v Charity Comission

Answer 2

Lord Toulson v v blunt about people who have an unnecessary tendancy to overlook the common law

Question 3

Anisminic

Answer 3

WIDE ULTRA VIRES PRINICPLE
- decided agency’s decision to exclude questioning by the courts is: bad faith, against formalities, not taking things into account, incorrect basis, etc.,

Question 4

Bromley LBC v Greater London COuncil

Answer 4

WIDE ULTRA VIRES

• statutory power but “invalid exercise of discretion”
• people paying for tube tax even though they had no tube lines
• action approved by electorate, this does not confer validity

Question 5

Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service

Answer 5

Diplock - you can judicially review royal prerogative

- judicial review is about “illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety”

Question 6

ex parte simms

Answer 6

before HRA!

- parliament can legislate contrary to HR but only expressly bc must meet political cost

Question 7

Walsh v Baldwin

Answer 7

COURTS DON’T JUST APPLY FACTS ANYMORE

• maximum justice requirements
• lord reed: obliterates past views
• variations of strength of due process needed but always need some things for a fair trial

Question 8

ex parte doody

Answer 8

requirements for a fair hearing will change over time

- but baseline is that person will be able to make a representation and knows the case to answer

Question 9

yu

Answer 9

f