• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

In the context of control of discretionary powers, do you consider that the threshold of intervention in judicial review proceedings should vary depending on the subject matter of the decision?

Extracts from this document...


In the context of control of discretionary powers, do you consider that the threshold of intervention in judicial review proceedings should vary depending on the subject matter of the decision? What lessons can our courts learn from the manner in which the judiciary in other common law jurisdictions have approached this question? Introduction Judicial review proceedings exist to ensure that lower courts and administrative bodies do not act beyond or at variance with their inherent powers. If they do act in such a way, the reviewing court1 will take action to rectify. Where discretionary powers given to administrative bodies are abused, the court will usually grant an order of certiorari quashing the decision. Generally, this will only be done if some aspect of the decision making process is corrupt and not because the court merely disagrees with the conclusion arrived at2. If the decision is set aside, then the facts of that particular case have cumulated in the eyes of the court to reach the threshold of intervention in that case. This essay will focus on where a discretionary power is used in an 'unreasonable' manner.3 The crux of the complaint is that the decision concluded on the facts is so 'unreasonable' that it essentially has been taken by the respondent in a capacity not intended by the enabling legislation and therefore cannot be sustained. ...read more.


As to the critical point of whether the standard of review should vary, Denham J did express support for such, albeit with the feeble statement that '...any determination of reasonableness would have regard to the subject matter and consequences of the decision...'. Morris P was much less equivocal on the matter and since his statement of the law on this issue was explicitly endorsed by Denham J, it can be assumed to be the current state of affairs in Ireland. Morris P agreed with counsel that '...another standard of review should apply6... when reviewing a decision that impinges on constitutionally protected rights' and that this 'other standard' was that set by Bingham M.R. in the English case of R v. Ministry of Defence, ex parte Smith7 '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...' Although this case seems fairly unequivocal in that the threshold of intervention may be sooner reached in cases of fundamental human rights, some seeds imminent of a change in direction have been sown in the recent Supreme Court decision of Z v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform8. McGuinness J agreed that 'any court will most carefully consider a case where basic human rights are in question'. ...read more.


Similarly, in R. v. Lord Saville, ex p. A10, Lord Woolf stated that '[e]ven the broadest discretion is constrained by the need for there to be countervailing circumstances justifying interference with human rights... [and] the courts will anxiously scrutinise the strength of the countervailing circumstances and the degree of interference with the human rights involved and then apply the test accepted by Bingham M.R. in ex p. Smith...'. Not only is there a sub-Wednesbury approach evident in English law but there is also evidence of a super-Wednesbury approach whereby as a result of the subject matter involved the court will not intervene even if the Wednesbury criteria are fulfilled. For example, in R. v. Secretary of State for the Environment, ex p. Hammersmith and Fulham LBC11, Lord Bridge stated that 'the formulation and implementation of national economic policy are matters depending essentially on political judgement' and concluded that the decision in question was 'not open to challenge on grounds of irrationality short of the extremes of bad faith, improper motive or manifest absurdity.' In ex p. Smith Bingham M.R. acknowledged that the greater the policy content of a decision and the more remote the subject matter from ordinary judicial experience, the more hesitant the court should be in holding a decision to be irrational. Should the threshold of intervention be varied? Are the reasonableness formulae of any actual use? Conclusion Of course the t of I will necessarily vary in every case. In essence the reasonableness formulae are entirely subjective and not open to a rigid and level application. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Automatism is generally considered to be a state in which a person has no ...

    5 star(s)

    The courts decided in this case that the jury should only consider automatism, with no need to take insanity into account, and the jury acquitted. It is possible to see the changing approach to the defence of automatism by the courts when comparing the decision in Charlson to that of Kemp (1957).

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Law of Evidence - R v Kearley

    5 star(s)

    It is submitted that this view is entirely correct. It is difficult to see any truth or fallacy in what was said to the police officers. A similar point is made by Pattenden25. According to her a 'purely conceptual view of hearsay, a non-narrative statement can not be hearsay, since a statement which does not state facts can not itself be literally true'.

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Police powers

    4 star(s)

    Under Code of Practice C, the custody officer must also inform Shane of his right to have someone informed of his arrest, such as a relative or friend (Section 56 of PACE), although this can be withheld for up to 36 hours if it is a serious arrestable offence or

  2. It is a matter of record there is no such thing as a right ...

    In essence they have been trying to define the goal posts. How far can we interpret the freedom of expression, before it infringes privacy? Elwood14 argues that celebrities may be seen to have waived their right to privacy; thus he claims the defence to any privacy actions they bring is implied consent.

  1. The Law Relating to Negotiable Instruments

    If it is dishonored, notice of dishonor must be given as in the case of a bill4. The shah does not guarantee the solvency of the drawer, although he guarantees the genuineness of the Hundi. A drawee will not pay the Hundi unless he has funds in his hands belonging to the drawer, or he is willing to give credit.

  2. Is Nuclear Power the Answer for the Future?

    In the late 1950s, the idea of nuclear power became a popular one, as many saw it as an easy way of producing substantial quantities of energy for the country at comparatively little expense. Nuclear fission required very little 'fuel', since only a small amount of uranium oxide was required

  1. Gregg v Scott decision of the House of Lords

    proposition that in clinical negligence cases, a claimant could never recover damages for the loss of a chance of a better outcome. The Court of Appeal Before the appeal court the claimant argued he had indeed suffered an injury. The tumour had spread and caused injury during the delay, and this meant the cause of action was complete.


    will be discussed in brief so as to provide context for the reforms that followed. The most controversial of which was the notable increase in insurance premiums prior to 2002. Although some contention does surround the cause for this increase, it can be suggested that an increase in personal injury claims was a contributing factor.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work