14. Procedural Grounds of Judicial Review

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Loveland
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Procedural Fairness ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Partial Picture ◽  
The Law ◽  
Modern Era ◽  
Do So

This chapter examines the procedural grounds of judicial review. It discusses how the courts have used the procedural fairness doctrine by reviewing a number of leading cases to identify the values that appear to be shaping the content of the law. The analysis focuses on case law drawn from the ‘modern’ (ie post-1960) era, but several seminal decisions from earlier periods are also considered. The concept of procedural fairness has generated a vast body of case law in the modern era and will continue to do so in future. But the law on this point, even when seen in conjunction with the law relating to the traditional substantive grounds on which government action can be held unlawful, offers only a partial picture of the way in which administrative law fits into the broader constitutional principles of the rule of law and the sovereignty of Parliament.

14. Procedural Grounds of Judicial Review

2021 ◽  
pp. 374-404
Author(s):  
Ian Loveland
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Procedural Fairness ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Partial Picture ◽  
The Law ◽  
Modern Era ◽  
Do So

This chapter examines the procedural grounds of judicial review. It discusses how the courts have used the procedural fairness doctrine by reviewing a number of leading cases to identify the values that appear to be shaping the content of the law. The analysis focuses primarily on case law drawn from the ‘modern’ (ie post-1960) era, but several seminal decisions from earlier periods are also considered. The concept of procedural fairness has generated a vast body of case law in the modern era and will continue to do so in future. But the law on this point, even when seen in conjunction with the law relating to the traditional substantive grounds on which government action can be held unlawful, offers only a partial picture of the way in which administrative law fits into the broader constitutional principles of the rule of law and the sovereignty of Parliament.

4. Due process

2021 ◽  
pp. 125-169
Author(s):  
Timothy Endicott
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
General Principle ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Procedural Fairness ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Natural Justice ◽  
Administrative Agencies ◽  
The Law

This chapter explains the overlapping ideas of natural justice, procedural fairness, and due process, and discusses the importance of comity between judges and administrative agencies. The elements of process are outlined: notice and disclosure, oral hearings, waiver, reconsideration, and appeals. Proportionality is presented as a general principle of the procedural duties of public authorities, and the chapter explains the three process values: procedural requirements can improve decisions, treat people with respect, and subject the administration to the rule of law. The chapter explains the irony of process: the law must sometimes require procedures that impose disproportionate burdens on administrative authorities, in order to protect due process. The chapter concludes with an explanation of discretion in process and of the potential dangers involved in administrative processes.

Contextual review: the instinctive impulse and unstructured normativism in judicial review

Legal Studies ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Dean R Knight
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
Categorical Methods ◽  
Evaluative Judgement ◽  
Judicial Method

AbstractContextual review is a judicial method that rejects doctrinal or categorical methods to guide judicial supervision of administrative action. Judges are invited to assess the circumstances of a claim in the round without any doctrinal scaffolding to control the depth of scrutiny; in other words, intervention turns on an instinctive judicial impulse or overall evaluative judgement. This paper identifies and explains the various instances where this method is deployed in judicial review in Anglo-Commonwealth administrative law. The efficacy of this style of review is also evaluated, using rule of law standards to frame the analysis. Its increasing popularity is a worrying turn, in part because its reliance on unstructured normativism undermines the rule of law.

scholarly journals Contextual Review: The Instinctive Impulse and Unstructured Normativism in Judicial Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dean Knight
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
Categorical Methods ◽  
Evaluative Judgement ◽  
Judicial Method

© 2020 The Society of Legal Scholars. Contextual review is a judicial method that rejects doctrinal or categorical methods to guide judicial supervision of administrative action. Judges are invited to assess the circumstances of a claim in the round without any doctrinal scaffolding to control the depth of scrutiny; in other words, intervention turns on an instinctive judicial impulse or overall evaluative judgement. This paper identifies and explains the various instances where this method is deployed in judicial review in Anglo-Commonwealth administrative law. The efficacy of this style of review is also evaluated, using rule of law standards to frame the analysis. Its increasing popularity is a worrying turn, in part because its reliance on unstructured normativism undermines the rule of law.

scholarly journals The Principles of Administrative Law as a Prism for Assessing the Content of Normative and Legal Provisions: Opportunities for Identifying the Problems and Solutions

2019 ◽  
Vol 87 (4) ◽  
pp. 104-116
Author(s):  
V. O. Ivantsov
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Charitable Organizations ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Corruption Prevention

The author of the article assesses the content of administrative normative and legal acts (on the example of legal regulation of restrictions on receiving gifts) through the prism of modern understanding of the principles of administrative law, which made it possible to distinguish a number of problems for determining the content of some of them and to work out the ways to solve them, namely: 1) Having studied the norms of the laws of Ukraine “On Prevention of Corruption” and “On Charitable Activities and Charitable Organizations” through the prism of the principle of humanism and justice in the relations between the individual and the state, it is proved that the legal possibility in the sphere of legal relations in the sphere cannot be restricted (forbidden) humanism and charity; 2) an analysis of the law enforcement practice of implementing the prohibition on gift giving has often revealed a flagrant violation of the rule of law; emphasized that ensuring the legal certainty of the described ban can be ensured by revealing its content by the National Anti-Corruption Agency; 3) installed: – uncertainty about the specific characteristics of “allowed gifts”, which requires amendments to the Law of Ukraine “On Corruption Prevention” to exclude them or to provide clear explanations within the framework of the NACC Guidelines; – violation of the provisions of the Typical Anti-Corruption Program of a Legal Entity approved by the Decision of NAPC No. 75 dated from March 2, 2017 No. 75 on the principle of hierarchical highness of law, which requires amendments to them in accordance with the provisions of the Art. 23 of the Law of Ukraine "On Prevention of Corruption", which defines uniform rules for determining the amount of "allowed gift"; – the content of the concept of "gift" does not correspond to such an important element of the rule of law as "prohibition of discrimination and equality before the law", which requires amendments to the Law of Ukraine "On Prevention of Corruption" in the part of the correction of the concept of "gift" as such is bounded by the restriction of "family-private" relations not related to the performance of functions of the state or local self-government. As a result, it was found out that the principles of administrative law in order to improve the regulatory acts of the sphere of administrative and legal regulation are: 1) as a criterion for assessing the content of provisions of regulatory legal acts, resulting in the isolation of their shortcomings; 2) legal bases for elaboration of amendments and additions to administrative normative legal acts.

scholarly journals A Judicial Review of the De Facto Detention of Foreigners in Turkey

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-153
Author(s):  
Gamze Ovacik
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Administrative Practices ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
Domestic Law

The term, de facto detention, refers to instances in which foreigners are held or deprived of their liberty usually with a view to preventing their entry into a country or expelling them from a country, but without implementing a legally prescribed detention regime that satisfies the criteria of the rule of law. The first type of de facto detention occurs when provisions regulating detention are absent or deficient in the legal framework. The second type takes place when domestic law sufficiently regulates detention regimes; however, the law is not duly implemented in practice. This article examines judicial practices in Turkey in both categories of de facto detention, analysing 37 Turkish court decisions with supporting case law from the European Court of Human Rights. Focusing on case law makes it possible both to track deficiencies in administrative practices and to analyse judicial response as a tool for rectifying unlawful administrative practices.

scholarly journals The Unmeritorious ‘Legality’/‘Merits’ Distinction in Singapore Administrative Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-32
Author(s):  
Benjamin Joshua Ong
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
General Principle ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Rough Approximation ◽  
Executive Decision Making ◽  
The Law

Abstract The Singapore courts often state that judicial review of executive decision-making ought only to involve an inquiry into the ‘legality’ of a decision or the ‘decision-making process’, and not the ‘decision itself’ or its ‘merits’ – let us call this the ‘Distinction’. This article argues that the Distinction should be expunged from Singapore law. The Distinction has its roots in English case law which aimed to prevent the courts from arbitrarily substituting their decision for the executive's by reason of mere disagreement. But Singapore case law has gone further and treated the Distinction as a general principle applicable to all of administrative law. However, the Distinction is too vague for this purpose (as seen from Singapore cases which have interpreted the distinction inconsistently). It is conceptually problematic, incompatible with the practicalities of judicial review (particularly substantive review as recognised in Singapore law), and has occasionally been paid lip service but not followed in substance. The Distinction cannot form a coherent principle to guide the courts and ought to be replaced by a more nuanced application of constitutional principles relevant to determining the appropriate scope of review. Whatever these principles may be, and however they are to be balanced, the Distinction can be but an over-inclusive rough approximation of them which hampers the development of the law.

15. Challenging Governmental Decisions: The Process

2021 ◽  
pp. 405-427
Author(s):  
Ian Loveland
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Family Practitioner ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Technical Area ◽  
Legal Procedures

This chapter examines the legal procedures an applicant must follow when challenging a government decision and explores how court decisions in this nominally very technical area of administrative law can have profound implications for the meaning in practical terms of such broad constitutional principles as the rule of law and the sovereignty of Parliament. The chapter begins by examining the historical duality with English administrative law of the mechanism through which citizens might question the lawfulness of government action. The chapter then continues to cover the case of Barnard v National Dock Labour Board; the Order 53 reforms; the case of O’Reilly v Mackman (1982); the post-O’Reilly case law; the case of Roy v Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster Family Practitioner Committee; and public law principle as a defence in criminal proceedings.

4. The Royal Prerogative

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Loveland
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Civil Service ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Revolutionary Era ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter considers the fate of the royal prerogative in the courts during the twentieth century. The discussions cover the relationship between statute, the prerogative, and the rule of law; the traditional perspective on judicial review of prerogative powers and its erosion; Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (GCHG) as the pivotal case in the development of judicial review of the prerogative; post-GCHG developments; and the notion of justiciability. The chapter concludes that the courts supervise the government’s use of prerogative powers more closely now than in the pre-revolutionary era. There has been an increase in the theoretical reach of the courts’ power of review since the 1967 decision in Lain. Administrative law also seems to treat prerogative and statutory powers in the same way.

Tiptoeing through the Tripwires: Recent Developments in Jurisdictional Error

2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 467-503
Author(s):  
Aaron Moss
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Future Development ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Effective Governance ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Academic Publications ◽  
Do So

Australian administrative law's continuing emphasis on the concept of jurisdictional error is increasingly unique amongst common law jurisdictions. This paper argues that recent developments in Australian jurisprudence have provided little guidance for administrative decision-makers, who are left ‘tiptoeing through the tripwires’ of judicial review. Combining a detailed analysis of primary decisions, academic publications and historical scholarship, this paper suggests that this lack of guidance is the result of a widespread judicial reluctance to engage with either the guidance or educative roles of judicial review. As this paper demonstrates, failure to do so encourages uncertainty, unpredictability and a general lack of clarity which inhibits judicial review's ability to guide decision-makers and contribute to the maintenance of effective governance, administrative justice, and the rule of law in Australia. Particular attention is given to the decisions of Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li, Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth, and NBMZ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, which together encapsulate many of the most problematic aspects of recent jurisprudence. To avoid these consequences, this paper calls on senior judges and commentators to articulate a clearer framework which will be applied to guide the future development of the doctrine of jurisdictional error.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document