Jurisdiction Flashcards
Craig textbook:
Error of fact - theories of jurisdiction
Collateral Fact Doctrine (Lord Diplock, Anisminic – authoritative until 1960s)
- Thesis: There are preliminary questions that public bodies must answer before they can proceed on the merits, and these relate to whether the body was properly constituted, and whether the case was of a kind referred to in the statute (questions can involve fact, law or discretion). Public body makes an initial determination, but if the court finds on review that the situation in the statute didn’t exist then the public body’s finding is null.
- Difficulty: normally, statutes would say if X1, X2 and X3, then public body shall/may do Y. But if the X factors were deemed always to be jurisdictional, then the line between appeal and review would disappear and public body would only have the power to do whatever accorded with the opinion of the court
o Diplock’s resolution: if misconstruction of the statute relates to kind of case, then it is jurisdictional, but if it relates to situation then it is internal (but this line is impossible to draw – there is no predictability as to how a case will be categorized before the court categorizes it, and no ex post facto justification for why cases are so categorized)
Craig textbook:
Error of fact - theories of jurisdiction
Limited Review (Gordon)
- Thesis: if a public body is given jurisdiction over a certain topic then the question is whether the facts relating to the topic exist in the opinion of the public body (eg. if the topic is assault, then as long as the public body asked the right question (was there assault in the opinion of the public body?) then it will bind, even if it made the wrong answer).
- Difficulty: distinction between scope and truth is misconceived – it is fallacious to say that asking the wrong questions is always a question of jurisdiction; the subject matter of inquiry might involve decisions on a number of issues, and yet since each isn’t a subject matter by itself any error is only within jurisdiction. The fallacy is most evident when considering f(a,b,c,d…)=furnished tenancy – Gordon would only inquire into whether the right term, “furnished tenancy”, has been used, and doesn’t allow the court to peer into the meanings in the bracket (terms certain, intent, amount of fixture and fittings…) as these are termed non-jurisdictional. And yet the term is only a short hand for what is in the bracket – such a distinction makes little sense. As such, it would allow terms to become ‘empty vessels’ into which anything can be poured.
o Analytically flawed
o Unacceptable on policy grounds
Craig textbook:
Error of fact - theories of jurisdiction
Extensive Review - Academic (Gould)
- Thesis: The preliminary question of whether a public body was empowered to answer the relevant issue is decided on the opinion of the court, because it exists independently/as a precursor to the exercise of jurisdiction. The question is based on facts whose meaning cannot be altered by the public body, but relative to the opinion of the courts.
- Difficulty: why should all issues of law be ‘given’, and determined by the courts?
o Parliamentary intent – problem is that the argument depends on an irrebuttable presumption that Parliament intended the courts to decide on questions of law. This has been true in practice in the last 40 years but not in the 300 years before this.
o Impossibility (Gould: it wouldn’t be possible to talk of error of law unless there’s a ‘given’ meaning, to be determined by the courts) – this is a fallacy because all terms can have a number of meanings and “error of law” simply means that the court’s meaning is better than the public body’s. However Parliamnet may well prefer precise meanings adopted by specialist bodies rather than the general judicial meaning
o Uniformity (only adopting court’s interpretation, rather than inferior bodies’ diverse interpretations, can achieve uniformity) – but this argument doesn’t apply to bodies with internal hierarchy (top can define and bottom uses the definition).
Craig textbook:
Error of fact - theories of jurisdiction
Extensive Review: Judicial (Page – Browne-Wilkinson)
- Thesis: Parliament only conferred decision-making powers on the basis that it was to be exercised on the correct legal basis (so that misdirection in law while exercising the power rendered it ultra vires). The presumption that any error of law is reviewable is rebuttable, and the strength of the presumption varies according to the institution being reviewed
- Difficulties:
1. Meaning of ‘ultra vires’ is problematic: Necessary to distinguish four aspects of reasoning in Page:
a. Disapproval of collateral fact doctrine (welcomed)
b. Replacement of the doctrine with test that all errors of law are open to scrutiny (similar to Gould’s theory – objections there apply here; if all X factors are open to review, then this means that court’s definition of terms like “employee” are preferable to public body’s)
c. Though the decision was based on ultra vires, it gives the term a different meaning: Anisminic said that jurisdictional errors were ultra vires, but Page says that any error of law may be ultra vires. Sir John Laws says that the ultra vires principle isn’t needed anymore because the courts are essentially reviewing all errors of law, but it is still useful in providing a legitimate device for exercise of courts’ power.
d. There is a latent duality in the meaning of ultra vires given by Browne-Wilkinson: 1) contrary to legislative intent (701) and 2) contrary to the general law of the land, including common law (no longer limited to legislative intent – 702)
2. Test depends on defining ‘error of law’ (versus error of fact) yet judicial precedent provides little guidance as to which is which (because judicial attitude was based on collateral fact). Shift towards attitude that all errors of law are jurisdictional makes distinction more important. Three themes in literature:
a. There can be disagreement, but issues regarding meaning of statutory terms should always be a question of law
b. But the courts don’t always adopt this approach – sometimes they decide based on whether they wish to intervene
c. Courts have sometimes thought that when an issue is deemed one of law then substitution of judgment is inevitable, but when a spectrum of reasonable interpretations are available then it must be a question of fact. This doesn’t follow: a legal issue doesn’t stop being such just because it’s open to multiple interpretations
Craig textbook:
Error of fact - theories of jurisdiction
Conclusion
Conclusion
- Scope vs truth/detail is unsatisfactory as test for what is jurisdictional
- Scope of jurisdictional review is not self-defining (can’t be decided on linguistic/textual analysis of statute alone) – critical questions relate to opinion
Craig textbook:
Current Case Law
Anisminic
- Lord Reid: courts can intervene if the alleged error resulted from asking the wrong question or taking account of irrelevant considerations. This widened scope because a court could always say when it wanted to review that the error stemmed from asking the wrong question
- Lord Pearce and Wilberforce reached same conclusion similarly: tribunals had limited authority, the limits of which were up to the court to define in view of the relevant statute. Lack of jurisdiction can arise by absence of condition precedent to tribunal’s jurisdiction, irrelevancy, and asking the wrong question
- Points:
o Asking the wrong question and irrelevancy tell us that an error has been made, not that it is jurisdictional; the judgment presupposes that any condition to the exercise of jursidiciton is jurisdictional. It essentially replaces the tribunal’s view of the powers conferred by statute with the court’s view; the division between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional vanishes
o Language of ‘asking the wrong question’ is really just a round-about way of saying that a different construction of an X condition should be adopted
Craig textbook:
Current Case Law
From Anisminic to Racal
- After Anisminic court could decide to intervene by saying the error resulted from asking the wrong question, or decide not to intervene by saying there was no error, or that the error was internal - contrast:
- Moore: sought review of tribunal’s interpretation of ‘resources’ for the purpose of a statute: Denning said that the interp was correct, and that further statutes shouldn’t become a hunting ground for lawyers to ask the court to review every minutia
- Pearlman: Denning said that the distinction depends on whether courts want to review, and that any error of law should be jurisdictional if the case depends upon it
Craig textbook:
Current Case Law
The Uncertainty of Racal
- Diplock drew tripartite test:
o Admin tribunals were subject to the full rigours of Anisminic: parliamentary intent is presumed subject to clear intention otherwise; any error of law will be deemed to result from asking the wrong question (jursidicitonal/non-jurisdictional errors abolished for practical purposes)
o Lower courts were subject to a different test, depending on the construction of the statute (whether P intended questions of law to be left to inferior courts – no presumption that statute didn’t so intend)
o High Court not subject to judicial review (appeal was the only corrective for mistake) - No other support for tripartite division
Craig textbook:
Current Case Law
Impact of Page (now leading authority)
- Ground of appeal: A was university lecturer who was made redundant; claimed that he couldn’t be dismissed on that ground, and visitor dismissed the claim. Sought review of visitor’s decision.
- Impact:
o Browne-Wilkinson said that the distinction between error of law on the face of the record and other errors of law was abolished, and that all admin tribunals’ errors of law were subject to review
o Basis of review is ultra vires – contrary to the law of the land. Thus lower courts are subject to review if their decisions are erroneous with regards to the law of the land.
o Only relevant errors can quash decision (those that contributed to the making of the decision)
o Unclear whether the distinction between tribunals and lower courts exists
Craig textbook:
Current Case Law
Impact of South Yorkshire Transport
- Terms might be open to a spectrum of interpretations, and the court can decide where on the spectrum to place the meaning (this is binding)
- But the criterion that is chosen might itself be so imprecise that different decision-makers may rationally reach different conclusions when applying it to specific cases, in which case the court will only substitute its meaning if the meaning the authority gave is “so aberrant that it cannot be classed as rational”
Craig textbook:
Current Case Law
Impact of Cart
- First case that dealt with the more limited review under Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
- Rejected argument that the Upper Tribunal was immune from review: no judge is infallible, so judgments should always be subject to review by superior courts; if the Upper Tribunal were immune, then it can make errors and these cannot be corrected
Craig textbook:
Current Case Law
Summary
- Courts will review any error of law and won’t use jurisdictional/non-jurisdicitonal distinction
- Error must be relevant to decision
- If, having defined the statutory term, it is still imprecise, the court will only substitute its decision for the agency’s if the latter is aberrant
- Administrative body raises presumption that Parliament intended questions of law to be subject to review; lower courts do not raise this presumption
- Upper Tribunal within the confines of the 2007 Act only engages judicial review where C shows that the claim raises an important point of principle or practice/other compelling reason
- County court calls for more limited review: Cs must use appeal rights rather than judicial review except on grounds of absence of jurisdiction
- Grant of remedies is discretionary; it may not result merely because an error of law has been made
Craig textbook:
Current Case Law
Error of law within jurisdiction
- Errors of law within jurisdiction are subject to review if they ‘appear on the face of the record’ (in documents initiating the proceedings/pleadings/adjudication, reasons for decision)
- But since Page discarded distinction between jurisdictional/non-jurisdictional error, this new category is redundant
Craig textbook:
Current Case Law
Statutory Review
- Sometimes statutes explicitly provide grounds of review (most commonly 1) order was outside power conferred by Act, or 2) requirements of Act not complied with)
- These have been regarded as in addition to common law heads of review
Craig textbook: Policy considerations
Abandoning Collateral Fact/Limited Review
- Abandoning collateral fact doctrine desirable:
o Arbitrary and uncertain in application
o Difficult to distinguish between kind and situation - Gordon thesis (limited review) also undesirable:
o Analytically flawed
o Unacceptable on policy grounds
Craig textbook: Policy considerations
Need to Remember History
- The tests were unsatisfactory, but we shouldn’t forget the rationale for them/the central problem: the balance between judicial review and agency autonomy
Craig textbook: Policy considerations
Review for All Errors of Law: Comments
- Scope of review is not logically demanded (no a priori reason why court’s view should be preferred to agency’s)
- Danger of eliminating administrative autonomy
- This danger can be mitigated if courts adopted a more pragmatic/functional/policy-oriented view of the term ‘law’
- There is some indication of this: South Yorkshire Transport
Craig textbook: Policy considerations
Middle Way
- Control can be achieved without courts substituting their opinion in every case, or giving administration unfettered power:
o US case of Chevron – rational basis test:
♣ If court decided that Congress intended a specific construction of the statute, then that construction is enforced
♣ Otherwise court considers whether the agency adopted a permissible construction of the statute (would be upheld even if it’s not one the court would have adopted)
• English law can accommodate this test to a degree; the agency’s interpretation would be accepted under Chevron if it is within the spectrum of possible rational interpretations that the term can bear; in English law the court still defines the statute, but if that definition is still imprecise, then the rational basis test is applied
o Canadian approach: pragmatic and functional approach
♣ Pushpanathan - Factors are taken into account when deciding the applicability of agency’s definition: existence of privative clause, relative expertise of decision-maker, purpose of legislation and contested provision, nature of problem (fact/law)
♣ Dunsmuir – reduces test to correctness and unreasonableness (abolished reasonableness simpliciter and patent unreasonableness) - Concerns:
o Constitutional principle: basis of judicial review can be argued to be legality not correctness
Craig textbook: Error of Fact
- Meaning of error of fact – categories of cases:
o Simple factual finding is challenged as being incorrect
o complex factual findings that involve evaluative judgment – eg. Kibiti: court had to decide whether there was a civil war in Congo as that impacted on the test for asylum seeking
o The primary decision-maker factually misinterpreted evidence presented – eg. Haile: special adjudicator thought that applicant was referring to one organization while he was actually referring to another
o Mistake made by not taking into account crucial evidence – eg. CICB: Compensation board refused application without taking into account a police doctor report that would have lent weight to her allegations
o Mistakes made on mistaken factual assumptions – eg. Tameside, E
o Mistakes made on general factual assumptions (eg. to the degree of risk faced by a certain group of people) that are later modified in light of later evidence – eg. Polat
Craig textbook: Error of Fact
- Scope of review: prior law
o Extent to which facts are subject to review was unclear until recently – a narrow and broad view existed:
♣ Narrow view – review for jurisdictional fact (facts that are pre-conditions for the exercise of power – eg. that the applicant be 18 or over) are allowed, as well as where the fact was the sole basis for the decision
♣ Broad view – Tamewide: misunderstanding/ignorance of an established and relevant fact can be a ground for review; CIBC: a failure to take account of factual evidence justifies review for unfairness
Craig textbook: Error of Fact
- Scope of review: E v Secretary of State
o Facts: E, Egyptian national, applied for asylum on the ground that he sympathized with the Muslim Brotherhood and was thus susceptible to torture if returned; Home Secretary refused the application because they thought that there was a low risk of torture, and he sought to rely on further evidence to the contrary but was refused because only evidence before the decision could be taken into account.
o Ground of review: IAT erred by not admitting relevant evidence. CoA (Carnwath) said that there’s no material difference between judicial review and appeal on point of law, but the dividing line is between cases of fact and law, and those of law only.
o Test for review of errors of fact:
♣ Factual error can be dealt with under a separate ground of review – fairness (follows Lord Slynn in CICB)
♣ The must be a mistake as to an existing fact, including availability of evidence
♣ Fact must have been “established” (uncontentious and objectively verifiable)
♣ Appellant must not be responsible for mistake
♣ Mistake must have played a material (not necessarily decisive) role in reasoning
o Test for admission of evidence to prove mistake of fact
♣ Had discretion to admit new evidence, but subject to principles in Ladd v Marshall:
• the evidence must not have been able to be obtained with reasonable diligence at time of trial
• If the evidence had been given it would probably have had an important influence on result of case
• Evidence was credible (thought not necessarily incontrovertible)
♣ Carnwath distinguished between two categories of case:
• Cases where courts had admitted fresh evidence without reference to Ladd: explicable because cases turned on legality of ministerial decision where evidence wasn’t available when initial determination was made but minister had continuing responsibility over the matter
• Cases that challenge decisions made by tribunals, where applicant seeks to introduce fresh evidence to prove factual error: courts sometimes admitted this evidence even though applicant could have detected the error (Haile) – in these cases Ladd should be treated as starting point with discretion to depart in exceptional circumstances
Craig textbook: Error of Fact
- Scope of review: Croydon
o Facts: Cs were asylum seekers who sought judicial review of authority’s decision, which denied that they were children and hence not entitled to accommodation by local authority. HL held that Children Act 1989 drew distinction between whether someone was a child for the purpose of the act and whether that child was in need; the former was a question of fact to be determined by the court.
o Baroness Hale – court would decide because the issue admitted of a right or wrong answer even though it was difficult to determine
o Court can review fact on three grounds:
♣ There is an objective fact susceptible to only one answer + Parliament intended the court to find that answer
♣ There is a jurisdictional fact
♣ The facts fulfill the criteria in E
o As such fulfillment of criteria 1/2 means that they don’t have to fulfill E criteria
o Problematic reconcilement with E:
♣ No authority for proposition that court can review simply because there’s only one answer and it’s to be provided by court – subsequent cases treated Croydon either as a jurisdictional fact case or one dependent on the Children Act
♣ If first ground is accepted then it would consume the other grounds
♣ Normative distinction between the three types of case is not justified
Craig textbook: Error of Fact
- Test for mistake of fact: foundations
o E approach = compromise between rival considerations:
♣ Tension between primary role of initial decision-maker and judicial desire to provide relief
♣ Tension resulting from limitation of appeals in certain areas to questions of law (necessitating review for fact that can be couched in review for law)
o Difficulty with pre-existing narrow view:
♣ Difficult to apply: unclear why the categories (fact was a condition precedent to exercise of jurisdiction, fact was only evidential basis for decision, or fact related to a matter that had to be taken into account) were different from other errors of fact
♣ Out of step with other developments in judicial review
o Conceptual foundation for judicial intervention
♣ Possible to justify review of fact on its own without couching it in terms of review of law – it has always existed internally in judicial review; only question was as to its scope
♣ Argument that where statute limits appeals to questions of law questions of fact shouldn’t be allowed rests on an assumption as to what the law is, and that errors of fact can never lead to errors of law
Craig textbook: Error of Fact
- Test for mistake of fact: criteria in E
o Mistake must be to an existing fact: Kaydanyuk – applicant sought asylum but application was denied after IAT read a report saying that he was depressed and deportation would increase the risk that he would commit suicide. Application was refused and as a result his state of mind declined; sought judicial review on ground that his state of mind only became apparent after the determination – court disagreed and held that he didn’t meet the test.
o Evidence must be uncontentious and objectively verifiable: CICB – error was failure to mention police doctor’s report. Difficulty is with interpretation of ‘uncontentious’; whether it means not requiring ‘evaluation’, or that it must be crucial or reliable to the initial determination
o Applicant must not be responsible for the mistake (good because it prevents applicants from profiting from own wrongdoing and provides incentive to disclose full and accurate facts
o Mistake played material part in tribunal’s reasoning
o Tightened availability of fresh evidence (because it had expanded appeal/review for mistake of fact) to hold Ladd as starting point but with discretion to depart