Summative Assignment Public Law II LW203 - Part 2

Summative Assignment Public Law II LW203 - Part 2

Introduction

Administrative law relates to the control of government power. The purpose is to ensure that powers and the manner in which decisions are made are kept within the legal bounds. In addition, administrative law ensures that citizens are protected against any form of abuse of power when decisions are made. Accordingly, each citizen has the right to administrative action which is reasonable, expeditious, lawful, procedurally fair, and efficient. Judicial review is applied to ensure that a public body acts in a lawful manner in making decisions that affect the public. The three possible grounds applied in the case of judicial review proceedings are irrationality (unreasonableness), illegality, and procedural impropriety. The officials of the Home Office lack awareness of the principles of judicial review and this may impinge on their work in administrative decision-making. This paper is based on the principle of ‘unreasonableness’ and how it can be applied. As a basis for judicial review, administrative discretion of unreasonableness has proven to be problematic in areas of administrative law. For example, issues relating to the extent to which both practical and constitutional limitations of judicial power are usually held by the courts in case of exercising this ground. As a ground of judicial review, unreasonableness is hard to define with any clarity or certainty.

The interpretation of unreasonableness

The formulation by Lord Greene MR is one which is most cited in regard to judicial review whereby a decision is deemed unreasonable if "no reasonable authority could ever come to it.” Thus, a decision is deemed unreasonable if it is outrageous in its defiance of logic or in cases where a reasonable person is not able to come to such a decision. Thus, the principle of reasonableness is used as the standard for judicial review when dealing with administrative decisions. In addition, the application of reasonableness implies that if a decision of an administrative authority is considered to be reasonable, it is then annulled. Subjecting administrative decision-makers to make decisions based on judicial review for rationality is subjected to judicial standards of rationality. Thus, the courts have the power to intervene and squash a decision, especially if it has been considered unreasonable. The principle of reasonability is constituted of ‘perversity and ‘irrationality’ on the part of the decision-maker.

Reasonableness in Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion

The benchmark of reasonableness was established under the Wednesbury case, where Lord Greene contended that "If a decision on a competent matter is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it, then the courts can interfere... but to prove a case of that kind would require something overwhelming...”  Thus, reasonableness as the standard for judicial review of administrative action is linked with the “Wednesbury reasonableness test”.  This case relates to a dispute that opposed a local authority decision and a picture theatre. In the ruling Lord Green M. R stated that it could not intervene in overturning the decision made by the defendant because simply the court stated so. In the review and dismissal of the action for the judicial review, Lord Greene noted that the courts are not required to interfere with discretion that has been assigned to public authorities, given that:

(i)             the authority in its decision put into consideration all the things that are supposed to have been put into account;

(ii)            the authority in its capacity did not put into account things it was not supposed to account for, which are improper purposes; and

(iii)         That the decision made is not unreasonable, implying that the decision made no reasonable authority would have ever made it.

The doctrine of unreasonableness is interpreted in twofold meaning. For example, the first meaning relates to reasonableness in a substantive manner, and this corresponds to the third prong which states that no reasonable authority in its power would have accepted such a decision. The second meaning contains all three prongs, which have to be fulfilled. Thus when some decisions are made, the condition of ultra vires should not exist, and it must not be reasonable also.  For example, as it was in the GCHQ Case it was stated that irrationality is applied to a decision that is contemptible “in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it.”  Thus, it is unreasonable if other sensible persons in their right minds make the same decisions after failing to follow the set standards and regulations.

The functions of reasonableness in the administrative review are twofold: (i) if the authority acts within the sphere of competency, meaning that it exercises the discretion which has been assigned to it by the legislation; and (ii) it defines the scope of the competence of a public authority. Thus, as a standard of review, reasonableness has to meet these requirements, otherwise the action by the authority would be considered as unreasonable. In Short v Poole Corporation [1926][9] Warrington LJ used the example of the red-haired teacher and concluded that it was unreasonable to dismiss the teacher simply because she had red hair.  Thus, it is unreasonable when an action is done by the authority in bad faith.

Conclusion

Public officials must be aware of the principle of unreasonableness to ensure that they do not make decisions that are based on abuse of power. The principle of reasonableness as the standard for judicial review of administrative action is based on the “Wednesbury reasonableness test”.  Public officials have to understand that a public decision or action is reasonable if the authority considered required, acted within its powers, and other decision-makers would have made the same decision.  For reasonableness to be evident, administrative action must bear a reasonable association with the general purpose for which power is conferred. There are two general aspects associated with a standard of reasonableness in the review of administrative discretion. First, if the authority is within its power and sphere of competence to act rationally. Second, the authority has the power to exercise it without any form of prejudice or bias. The standard of reasonableness is associated with fairness where the decision made must be fair.

Bibliography

Books

Gordon, Anthony, UK Public Law and European Law (Oxford University Press, 2002) 39.

Broadbent, Graeme, Public Law: Directions (Oxford University Press, 2008) 103.

Craig, Paul, Administrative Law. 5th Ed. (Sweet & Maxwell, 2003) 23.

Dyzenhaus, David, “The Politics of Deference: Judicial Review and Democracy”, in Michael

Taggart ed., The Province of Administrative Law (Hart, Oxford, 1997), 279, at p. 302.

Feldman, David, English Public Law (Oxford University Press, 2009)278.

Halliday, Simon, Judicial Review and Compliance with Administrative Law (Hart Publishing, 2004) 6.

Le Sueur, Andrew, Public Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.

Article Journals

Daly, Paul, ‘Unreasonable Interpretations of Law’ (2014) Supreme Court Law Review 233.

Case Laws

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223

Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374.

Short v Poole Corporation [1926]