Procedural Impropriety Flashcards
Agricultural, Horticultural, and Forestry Industry Training Board v Aylesbury Mushrooms Ltd [1972]
Facts: the minister was empowered to establish Industrial Training Boards, but, in doing so, was required to consult relevant organisations in the area concerned. The Mushrooms Growers Association did not receive the consultation documents and so took no part in the process.
Held: the order establishing the Board, although valid in relation to bodies which had been consulted, did not apply in relation to the Mushrooms who had not been consulted.
Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council v Palmer and Bowles [1983]
Facts: the Council was empowered to issue tree preservation orders to protect selected trees within the borough. Each order required a plan identifying the relevant tree to be available for public inspection. In this particular case, no such plan was made available.
Held: Webster J: ‘the map not having been so deposited, the Order failed to comply with a mandatory requirement of the enabling regulations and was, therefore, invalid.’
Bias (nemo judex), financial interest in the outcome, case:
Dimes v Grand Junction Canal [1852]
Facts: The Lord Chancellor heard a case in involving the GJC Company and found in their favour. It later emerged he had a shareholding in the company.
Held: it was held that shareholding raised questions of bias and so invalidated the decision.
Bias (nemo judex), doesn’t require financial interest:
R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 2) [2000]
Facts: former dictator Augusto Pinochet was arrest during a visit to London, Spain had submitted an extradition request for his alleged war crimes. HoL considered whether a former head of state enjoyed immunity from such.
Held: held he did not have immunity. Later transpired one of the Law Lords had close links with Amnesty International, a group pressing for his extradition. Raised the possibility of vis and so required the decision to be set aside and the case reheard. Lord Hutton: ‘I wish to make it clear I am making no finding of actual bias against him. The links were so strong that public confidence in the integrity of the administration of justice would be shaken if his decision were allowed to stand.’
Definition of ‘bias’, case:
Porter v Magill [2002]
Facts: in the 1980s, the Conservative Westminster Council adopted a policy of targeted house sales (thinking owners would vote Conservative). Question of bias arose in relation to the subsequent investigation by the district auditor.
Held: the appropriate test for his was: ‘whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the relevant facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased.’
Right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem), case:
Ridge v Baldwin [1964]
Facts: R was Chief Constable of Brighton and was charged with conspiracy. He was cleared out, but the trial judge was highly critical of his leadership. Following the judges comments, he was dismissed without a hearing or being allowed to present his case.
Held: the right to a fair hearing required a person to be afforded the opportunity to present their case. Lord Hodson: ‘where the power to be exercised involves a charge made against the person who is dismissed… the principles of natural justice have to be observed before the power is exercised.’
Is there a right to be informed of the reasons for the decision? Case:
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [1994]
Facts: the applicants were life sentence prisoners whose applications for parole were refused without any reasons being given. They sought disclosure of the reasoning behind the decision.
Held: it was held that, although there remained no general duty to disclose the reasons for the decision, this was contrary to public interest in such serious matters. Where a decision was amenable to judicial review, it was necessary for the applicant to know the reasoning employed by the decision-maker in order to prepare for their case. Lord Mustill: ‘I would asks simply: is refusal to give reasons fair? I would answer without hesitation that it is not.’
