This essay will discuss whether 'Judicial review of administrative action does little to protect the rights of the individual against the power of the state.'

Authors Avatar by traveleinorg (student)
Student Number B00652856 This essay will discuss whether 'Judicial review of administrative action does little to protect the rights of the individual against the power of the state.' It is believed that the origins of Judicial Reviews is found in the case of a Chief Constable of Brighton who was relieved of his duties without the chance to put his case forward before dismissal.[1] The number of judicial review cases in England and Wales rose from 160 in 1974 to over 1,230 in 1985, and to some 3,200 in 1994.[2] Ackerman LWH, states that: Those who are committed to the establishment of a non-racial, human rights-based democracy in South Africa appear largely to agree that a system of judicial review, in the wide sense of the expression, is essential not only for the effective protection of human rights, but also for the viability of a new constitutional dispensation.[3] Clearly we have commentators arguing that JR is a thing to behold and essential to Human Rights. A Judicial Review (JR) should be conducted in accordance with the rules[4] where the function is to determine if legal rules and procedures were correctly followed[5]. Some might argue this administrative device gives the public power to question the executive and others may argue it’s a way of keeping the lawmakers in check. The legal historian Maitland said in 1888: Government has taken responsibility for large areas of social regulation and public services, which means it possesses an enormous ability to affect people’s lives. [6] Close to 100 years later Lord Derry Irvine said: It has been the massive expansion of the administrative state which more than any other factor’ has prompted judges to develop the principals of judicial reviews.[7] When one remembers the words of Dicey LJ[8], it can be argued that a JR is at odds with his principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty. For example when a piece of legislation or a decision is clearly wrong or a public body has acted Ultra Vires and all other legal avenues have been exhausted[9] relief my be sought via a JR. One may wish to thank Lord Diplock who established the three grounds for JR’s in the CSU case, 'illegality', 'irrationality', and 'procedural impropriety'.[10] Take for example the announcement of the Loretto Grammar School project by the Dep’t for Education[11]. It was viewed by many that this was a grand announcement made by the Department yet despite mention of £14.6m funding nothing happened. Following this a member of the public initiated a JR against the departments decision. Unthinkable without the aid of a JR, here the public were holding a Minister and a Department to account for their words and inaction. Some may argue this is not a protection of rights rather its a enforcement of duties agreed to be done, or are they one and the same? It appears when examining cases; consultation is one of the
Join now!
most challenged failures by the Executive. In the case of Mrs Coughlan a disabled woman in a nursing home at Newcourt Hospital Devon, she was given an assurance she could stay in her nursing home as long as she wished to remain there and it was argued on her behalf that this gave rise to a legitimate expectation. In fact similar to that of the Loreto[12] case where there was also a legitimate expectation. It was held in the Coughlan case: That if a public body exercising a statutory function made a promise as to how it would behave in ...

This is a preview of the whole essay