• 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

    Law of Evidence - R v Kearley

    5 star(s)

    He remarks that it is unlikely that a number of callers will telephone a defendant's premises with the deliberate intention of deceiving the police into believing that the defendant is a dealer. Pattenden28 argues there is a reduced risk of lying because there is no assertive intent.

  2. 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


    These limitations were referred to as 'caps' and they effectively reduced the amount of compensation available to an aggrieved party.20 Secondly, review panels were established to screen claims prior to their hearing in court. This had the potential to cut litigation costs and time.21 Thirdly, and to similar effect, arbitration bodies were established to provide fast results for negligence claims.

  2. Is Nuclear Power the Answer for the Future?

    the much more serious accident in 1986 at Chernobyl in Ukraine (http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-countries-with-nuclear-weapons). These two incidents played a major part in the shut down of many plants in Britain as the power was deemed unsafe. But now we have diagnosed a major climatic, non-nuclear problem on Earth, and have more advanced

  1. The Law Relating to Negotiable Instruments

    than 48 hours, exclusive of public holidays, to consider whether he will accept the same, all previous parties not consenting to such allowance are discharged from liability to the holder (Sec. 83). 6. By non-presentment of check: Where a check is not presented for payment within a reasonable time of

  2. In the context of the theoretical proposition on the issue of law and morality, ...

    Anybody that discovers an attempted suicide situation, by law, must intervene.7 The person committing suicide would not be criminalised jurisdiction recognising that those who opted to commit suicide were deserving of compassion rather than punishment. 8Jurisdiction in England believes that "individuals desperate enough to attempt suicide are unlikely to be deterred from so doing so by a legal prohibition."

  1. Gregg v Scott decision of the House of Lords

    All the issues about statistical chances of survival which came to be considered as matters of causation, were only pertinent to arguments about quantification, the claimant argued. The claimant asserted that appropriate compensation would be that which would compensate for the effects of the enlargement of the tumour, the increased

  2. prisoners rights

    These being: (1) fine; (2) civil commitment; and (3) probation. As to release on probation, it may be stated that it really results in suspension of required to execute bond under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, requiring maintenance of good conduct during the probationary period, the

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