JR

• what is JR


  a claim for a review of lawfulness of an enactment, decision, action or failure to act in relation to a public function (CPR 1998 s54 1 2
• jr is a review


  of the procedure, not the facts
• procedural requirements


  1. permission

  2. standing

  3. time limit

  4. ouster clauses

  5. procedural exclusivity

  6. exhaustion of remedies

  7. remedies
• permission


  public function test- exercising any function of a public nature

  have to get permission or leave from a court to be able to claim a judicial review

  SCA 1981 s31 (2A)- a court must refuse permission or refuse to grant relief if the court has a reason to believe that the applicants outcome would not have been substantially different had the conduct complained about not occurred
• standing (locus standi)


  does the applicant have a sufficient interest in the claim

  SCA 1981 s31(3)- does the applicant have a sufficient interest in the matter to which the application relates to

  lord scarman: not a mere busybody, prima facie case, there is a logical connection between the claimant and claim
• time limit


  CPA 1998 s54.5- promptly, no later than 3 moths since the claim arose
• list for standing


  1. not busybodies

  2. nature of the applicant

  3. the extent of the interest in the claim

  4. the remedy sought by the applicant
• ouster clauses


  provisions in legislation to limit the availability for JR
• procedural exclusivity


  administrative court (HC), o'riley v mackman 1983
• exhaustion of other remedies


  SCA 1981 s31(2A)
• remedies


  SCA 1981 31 (1): a) quashing mandatory prohibitory order b) injunction declaration DISCRETIONARY
• quashing order


  belmarsh- prevent past action, make past decision have no legal effect
• prohibitory order


  prevent a future action, stop a public authority from doing something or continuing to do something R v Liverpool corp
• mandatory order


  command an authority to do it's function Padfield v minister of agriculture
• ILLEGALITY


  decision maker must know the law that regulates his decision making and give effect to it

  Caughlan 2022

  1. ultra vires

  2. misunderstand the law

  3. exercises a power wrongly
• coughlan 2022


  voter id against the representation of the people act 2000, not illegal just statutory interpretation
• legitimate expectation


  1. substantive- expectation of a substantive decision, benefit

  2. procedural- expectation of a procedure being followed
• PROCEDURAL IMPROPRIETY


  failure to follow rules of natural justice and failure to act with procedural fairness towards the person who will be effected by the decision

  1. fair hearing

  2. no bias

  3. legitimate expectation
• GCHQ expectation


  procedural- to be consulted about the rights and conditions of the civil servants, subject to JR but not appropriate because about national security
• more keen to enforce when its .... expectation

  procedural, enforce court to carry out procedure as not a use of resources
• legitimate expectation about


  the act of decision making, not the content of the decision
• list for leg exp

  1. representation must not conflict with statute

  2. number of people effected by the representation

  3. representation must be clear and unequivocal

  4. reliance and detriment

  5. political promises
• coughlan 2001


  moving her to a home for life, substantive leg expectation

  1. there was a promise/representation made

  2. part of a defined group

  3. reliance to her detriment

  4. overriding public interest that would justify the frustration of the legitimate expectation
• R (Bibi) v Newham LBC [2002]


  promised to provide Bibi accommodation then didn't

  substantive legitimate expectation

  4. overriding public interest that would justify the frustration of the legitimate expectation
• ex parte Hargreaves 1997


  would it be manifestly unreasonable to depart form the legitimate expectation
• IRRATIONALITY/UNREASONABLENESS


  1. decision so outrageous in its defiance of logic and accepted moral standards that no sensible decision maker could have come to the same decision

  2. take into account irrelevant facts and not relevant

  3. bad faith
• irrationality case


  wheeler v leicester city council, race relations act 1976 s71- promote good relations between people of different racial groups- irrational, illegal and procedurally improper

  daly- unreasonable, violates rights to privacy and confidential communication with lawyer
• PROPORTIONALITY


  for the administrative court to decide whether an act/decision was proportionate to the legitimate aim
• Hickman 2007 test


  1. was the measure necessary in achieving the desired objective

  2. was the measure suitable to the desired objective

  3. did the measure impose an excessive burden on the individual effected by it
• Bank mellat v hm treasury 2013 test


  1. was the measure's objective sufficiently important to justify a limitation of a fundamental right

  2. was the measure rationally connected to the objective

  3. could a less intrusive measure had been used

  4. has there been a balance struck between the rights of the individual and the interests of the community
• Daly on proportionality


  limitation of article 8 1 (right to communication)

  1. is the legislative objective sufficiently important to justify the limitation of a fundamental right

  2. is the measure rationally connected to the legislative objective
• principle of subsidarity


  the task of protecting convention rights lies with the state and ecthr only interferes if it's not
• margin of appreciation


  can exercise discretion when implementing convention rights
• s2 HRA 1998/article 46


  a court determining a question which arose in relation to a convention right must take into account the decision, declaration, judgement, advisory opinion of the ECtHR
• s3 HRA 1998


  primary and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the convention rights
• s4 HRA 1998


  declaration of incompatibility- primary legislation or secondary legislation where primary legislation prevents its removal
• s6 HRA 1998


  acts of public authorities- it is unlawful public authorities to act in a way which is not compatible with a convention right unless primary legislation prevents them from acting differently
• public auhtority


  exercises a function of a public nature (minsters, CPS, police, government departments...)
• s16 HRA 1998/art 15


  derogation- a state might derogate from it's convention obligations in time of war or public emergency threatening the life of the nation