Judicial Review problem question essay

Judicial Review paradox question essayJudicial Review problem question (3000 words) start 1The first signifi contributet ara for consideration in this scenario is whether rogue will be granted authorization to proceed with his application for juridical look backward. He is seeking critical review of a end by an inwrought disciplinary hailroom that he be dismissed for unprofessional aim. The flirt of fairness found unanimously in favour of dismissing shit. In edict to evaluate whether jacks will be permitted to pursue his pick out for review, the nature of jusidical review must briefly be considered. Following the Bow small-arm Report of 2000, in the light of Lord Woolfes recommendations for pr puzzle outice of law reform, the regime of juridic review has been altered in certain way of lifes. The 1977 reforms of the procedure did not state expressly that juridic review was an exclusive procedure.1 It was in the sequel of Oreilly v Mackman (1983) that the court co nsidered the issue of exclusivity. In this lawsuit, the House of Lords held that it would be contrary to habitual policy to allow an applicant to seek to enforce state-supported law goods by way of ordinary action rather than by way of discriminatory review. In the kick in instance, then, it must be considered whether the termination of the court of law is a public or a mystical law matter. The opinion of the House of Lords in this case means that adjective exclusivity exists in cases of public law.In order to assess whether dogshits case is whiz of public law, the common land law must be considered in this area. In Cocks v Thanet District Council (1983), the House of Lords held that low the relevant encounter in the case, the Housing ( seatless Persons) coif 1977, the housing authorities functions were essentially public law functions. These functions included deciding whether they had a duty to house the applicant chthonic the 1977 Act. It was only after this deci sion had been made, and if it was considered that such a duty did exist, that private rights and obligations would arise. In Roy v Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster Family Practiti unmatchabler Committee (1992), the House of Lords held that an issue was touch exclusively with a public right should be determined in judicial review minutes. This strict application of the exclusivity dominion, however, has been superceded by the more on the loose(p) approach characterised in the decision of Clark v University of Lincolnshire and Humberside (2000). In his judgement, Lord Woolfe explained the personal effects of the new Civil Procedure Rules on the rule in Oreilly v Mackman. The intention of the CPR is to harmonise procedures as far as possible and to avoid barren procedural disputes which generate satellite litigation.2 The master(prenominal) question has become whether failure to follow the correct procedure amounts to revilement of process of court.In the present case, the n, the question of whether this matter is properly draw as public law or private law is of the period significance. As long as laborer can satisfy the court that the functions of the lawcourt are public law ones, he will most likely be granted permission to proceed with his consider. This, however, may be difficult. In R v Legal Aid Board, ex p Donn Co (1996), Ognall J stated that in that location can be no universal adjudicate for deciding whether a matter is properly depict as public law. If the judiciary is a public body, it will view derived its authority from order or delegated legislation (as opposed to deriving powers from the intellect of those who are subject to the body). Some guidance as to what would constitute a public body was offered by the tourist court of Appeal in R v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex p Aga khan (1993). Here it was held that although the Jockey Club regulated a significant home(a) activity, it did not properly constitute a public body, as it was not mentioned in statute, and its powers were exclusively over those who agreed to be bound by it. In cocksuckers case, however, the homage does indeed derive its powers from statute. Furthermore, followers R v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex p Datafin plc (1987), the court should look to the nature of the functions the body performs, as sound as its origins. The functions of the judicatory will be considered to be public law functions, and so in the light of the doctrine of exclusivity, bull will be granted permission to proceed with his produce for judicial review.Part 2There are various causa that may arise for rapscallion to pursue his claim for judicial review in the scenario. Firstly, Jack is told by the tribunal that he may not confirm legitimate type present. Furthermore, although he is entitle to arouse a friend or relative present at the proceedings, this person must not be legally qualified. Is this a scandalise of protocol? In other words, does Jack endure a right to be represented at the Tribunal? It is afforded at common law that no such right exists. In the case of R v Board of Visitors of HM Prison, the Maze, ex p hone, the appellants claimed that the Boards refusal to allow them to be legally represented at the disciplinary proceedings was counter to natural evaluator. Lord Goff, however, said it does not follow that simply because a charge before a disciplinary tribunal relates to facts which in law constitute a crime, the rules of natural justice require the tribunal to grant legal representation. According to this analysis, then, Jack does not necessarily acquit a right to legal representation. Whether legal representation is granted is a matter, in this instance, for the tribunal to decide. In doing so, it must take into account a number of factors. These include whether there are complex matters of law at issue (which it does not appear there are in this case) and whether Jack is incapabl e of presenting his own case. If fairness dictated that Jack should be allowed representation for either of these reasons, then of course he should be, but the tribunal appears to have acted inside its rights to deny him this representation in the present instance. Lord Denning racylighted this principle in Pett v Greyhound Racing Association (1969) It is not every man who has the ability to defend himself on his own He may be tongue-tied or nervous, confused or wanting in intelligence. Jacks tribunal could make a case for denying Jack representation, and this is not therefore a suitable ground for his claim for judicial review.The imprimatur issue relates to the tribunals decision to limit Jacks witnesses to quint, as opposed to the ten he originally sought to act as character witnesses. There are two possible avenues which Jack could proceed down with this. The decision can be determine as locomote within, perhaps, one of the original categories of grounds for judicial revie w as set out by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil overhaul Unions v Minister for the Civil redevelopment (1985). This ground was irrationality, which was likened in that case to the principle of un credibleness identified in the other key case for judicial review, Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948). This principle of irrationality app reposed, in Lord Diplocks words, to a decision which I so horrific in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who has applied his mind to the question to be refractory would have arrived at it.3 This was adapted and mollified somewhat by Lord Cooke in R v Chief Constable of Sussex, ex p global Traders Ferry Ltd (1999), who asked whether the decision in question was one which a reasonable authority would reach. The problem of proceeding down this avenue, for Jack, is the high standard of proof which Jack must meet in order to be successful in his claim. He would need to show that the decision to limit his witnesses to five would not be reached by any reasonable person. Lord Ackner identified the reason for this high level of proof as being that judicial review is a supervisory process, not an appellate jurisdiction (R v Secretary of State for the Home De take upment, ex p Brind (1991)). It seems unlikely that Jack would succeed in establishing that this decision on the start of the tribunal was so irrational as to be worthy of judicial review.He would more likely be successful following the chip potential avenue in relation to this decision of the tribunal that of procedural impropriety, which was in like manner one of the original grounds for judicial review identified in the GCHQ Case. This phrase encompasses both the breach of statutorily defined procedural rules, and also the breach of common law rules of natural justice. Jacks claim in this area will depend in part on the procedural rules set out in the relevant statute governing physical exer tion tribunals. If the tribunal has not complied with statutory provisions by limiting Jacks witnesses to five, it will be considered to have acted immoderate vires. In this case, the tribunal has met with its statutory obligation under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992, s10 to place reasons for its decision to limit the number of witnesses to five for each side (it would not be administratively expedient to allow the calling of such a large number of witnesses, particularly as it is the view of the tribunal that many of the witnesses would not provide evidence which would have a material dissemble upon the outcome of the proceedings).It is a central principle of natural justice that Jack must be entitled to a fair hearing. It is in this area that Jack has the best chance of securing judicial review of the employment tribunals decision. Firstly, in relation to the composition of the panel, Jack has a valid complaint against the inclusion of a member of staff with whom he had a alliance that ended acrimoniously. This instantly raises the possibility of preconceived idea in the tribunal panel. English courts have developed two tests for bias, based on reasonable suspicion, and on real likelihood. In R v Gough (1993), however, it was held that the alike test should be applicable in all cases of apparent bias. This test is whether there is a real danger of bias. Given the nature of the womanhoods previous relationship to Jack, it is fair to suggest that there is a real danger of bias. This, then, according to the Gough test (despite subsequent challenges to that test in cases such as Porter v Magill (2002)), would give Jack a strong ground for seeking judicial review.Part 3The grounds under which Jack might be able to pursue his claim for judicial review have been considered. Purely on the grounds for judicial review, Jacks best chance of success lies with the danger of bias in the composition of the panel in the tribunal, given that one of his ex-girlfr iends is a member of it. Jack might well, however, be able to strengthen his claim by supporting it with Human Rights Act claims. The impact of this will be considered on each of the possible grounds for review outlined above.Firstly, in respect of the decision by the tribunal not to allow Jack to be legally represented, it is possible that although this is not necessarily improper in itself, it may be a breach of Jacks merciful rights as encompassed in the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporate into English law by the Human Rights Act 1998. The relevant obligate of the Convention is obligate 6, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing. This entitles Jack, in the intention of his civil rights and obligations to a fair and public hearing.4 Firstly, does this cover tribunals of the sort Jack is involved in? In the case of Ringeisen v Austria (1971), the European judicial system held that Article 6(1) covers all proceedings whose result affects private rights and o bligations. In the present instance, Jacks right to continue working as a teacher is to be determined by the outcome of the tribunal. It seems then, that his case is at least covered by the Article.The Article only confirms that Jack would have a right to legal representation, however, if he were charged with a execrable offence. Everyone charged with a criminal has the following minimal rights to defend himself in person or through legal assistance 5 This, however, is merely a civil offence, so once again, there is no guarantee that Jack should be granted legal representation under the ECHR.The same Article of the Convention is also applicable, however, to the composition of the tribunal panel as well as the manner in which the tribunal was conducted. Firstly, the Article guarantees the right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable quantify by an independent and impartial tribunal6 In the European Court case of Langborger v Sweden (1989), the Court established that even if individuals are technically qualified to address a given issue and even if there is no subjective reason to doubt their personal integrity, it is important that the show of objective impartiality and independence is observed.7 More specifically, in the case of Sramek v Austria (1984), those adjudicating a particular matter cannot be seen to have a relationship with any of the parties. This case law clearly impacts upon Jacks case, as the previous relationship he had with the female member of the panel can be seen to breach this principle of fairness and impartiality, despite her assurances that the history had no effect on her judgment.Furthermore, also under Article 6(1), the court or tribunal is required to give reasons for its decisions. Jacks employment tribunal met this requirement insofar as it gave reasons for its refusal to allow Jack more than five witnesses, but it must also have given reasons for its unanimous decision to dismiss Jack. Perhaps linked to this is Jacks right under the same Article to a fair hearing. The fact that Jack noticed one of the panel was falling dormant during his defence hardly seems commensurate with this principle. He could conceivably, then, mount a challenge to the decision of the tribunal based on world rights claims under Article 6 of the ECHR. He would have two substantial avenues of challenge firstly the impartiality of the tribunal could be called into question due to its inclusion of Jacks ex-girlfriend. Secondly, the conduct of the tribunal itself, particularly the fact that a member of the panel was falling asleep during Jacks submission, suggests Jack would have a valid claim for breach of his rights.In this scenario, then, Jack would be able to establish grounds for his claim for judicial review. The tribunal is exercising a quasi-judicial function, and would be properly categorised as a public law function. As such, judicial review is the proper way to proceed to challenge its decisions. In terms of ac tual grounds for review, Jacks best chances lie with the composition of the panel. The inclusion of his ex-girlfriend, despite the panels claim to the contrary, could be seen to have an adverse effect on the impartiality of the panel. Again, the falling asleep of one of the panels members during Jacks presentation also gives ground for judicial review due to procedural impropriety. It seems the panel has acted within its rights to deny legal representation to Jack. Nor is this legal representation guaranteed under human rights legislation, as this is clearly a civil matter, while the ECHR only guarantees legal representation in criminal cases. Again, in the context of the Human Rights Act 1998, Jacks best chances of mounting a strong case for breach of his rights lies in the composition of the panel and the conduct of the hearing. These seem to have constituted potential breaches of Article 6 of the ECHR.BIBLIOGRAPHYStatutesCivil Procedure Rules 1999European Convention on Human Righ tsHousing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977Human Rights Act 1998Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992CasesAssociated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation 1948 1 KB 223Clark v University of Lincolnshire and Humberside 2000 3 All ER 752Cocks v Thanet District Council 1983 2 AC 286Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service 1985 AC 374Langborger v Sweden (1989)Oreilly v Mackman 1983 2 AC 237Pett v Greyhound Racing Association 1969 1 QB 125Porter v Magill 2001 UKHL 67R v Board of Visitors of HM Prison, the Maze, ex p Hone 1988 AC 379R v Chief Constable of Sussex, ex p International Traders Ferry Ltd 1999 2 AC 418R v Disciplinary Committee of the Jockey Club, ex p Aga khan 1993 2 All ER 853R v Gough 1993 AC 646R v Legal Aid Board, ex p Donn Co 1996 3 All ER 1R v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex p Datafin plc 1987 QB 815R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Brind 1991 1 AC 696Ringeisen v Austria (1971)Roy v Kensington and Chelsea and Westmin ster Family practitioner Committee 1992 1 AC 624Sramek v Austria (1984)Secondary sourcesGomien, D. (2005) Short impart to the European Convention on Human Rights (Strasbourg Council of Europe)Leyland, P., and Woods, T. (2002) Textbook on administrative Law, 4th Edition (Oxford OUP)Parpworth, N. (2004) positive and Administrative Law, 3rd Edition (London LexisNexis)Footnotes1 See, for example, Parpworth, N. (2004) Constitutional and Administrative Law, 3rd Edition (London LexisNexis), p2642 Quoted in Parpworth, p2703 Quoted ibid, p3094 European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6(1)5 Ibid, Article 6(3)(c)6 Ibid, Article 6(1)7 Quoted in Gomien, D. (2005) Short fall to the European Convention on Human Rights (Strasbourg Council of Europe), p56