Grounds of judicial review: illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety
Grounds of Judicial Review: Illegality, Irrationality, and Procedural Impropriety
1. Introduction
Judicial review is the process by which courts supervise administrative decisions to ensure they are lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair. It protects citizens from abuse of power by administrative bodies.
The three classic grounds of judicial review, famously formulated in English administrative law and influential globally, are:
Illegality
Irrationality
Procedural Impropriety
2. Ground 1: Illegality
Meaning:
Illegality occurs when a public authority or decision-maker acts beyond the powers (ultra vires) granted to them by statute or law, or misinterprets the law.
Key points:
Authority must act within the limits set by the enabling statute.
Failure to follow statutory mandates or acting without legal authority is illegal.
Courts will set aside decisions made without legal basis or for improper purposes.
Important Cases on Illegality:
a) Anisminic Ltd v. Foreign Compensation Commission (1969) (UK)
Facts: Anisminic challenged a decision of the Foreign Compensation Commission, which refused compensation.
Issue: Whether an error of law made by the Commission would render its decision invalid, despite a statutory ouster clause.
Holding: The House of Lords held that any error of law by the Commission made its decision a nullity (illegal).
Significance: Expanded judicial review by holding that errors of law made by public bodies are reviewable, even when ouster clauses exist.
b) R. v. Home Secretary, ex parte Fire Brigades Union (1995) (UK)
Facts: The Home Secretary failed to implement a statutory compensation scheme.
Issue: Whether the Secretary’s failure was lawful.
Holding: The House of Lords held the failure was illegal because the Secretary was required by statute to implement the scheme.
Significance: Confirmed that public authorities must act according to their statutory duties.
c) Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (1985) (GCHQ case) (UK)
Facts: The government banned GCHQ employees from joining trade unions by order.
Issue: Whether the government’s action was within legal power.
Holding: The action was legal but reviewable on other grounds.
Significance: Emphasized legality as a fundamental ground but acknowledged scope for national security exceptions.
3. Ground 2: Irrationality (Wednesbury Unreasonableness)
Meaning:
A decision is irrational if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it. It is often called the "Wednesbury unreasonableness" test.
Key points:
It protects against arbitrary or capricious decisions.
Courts do not substitute their own judgment but intervene if decisions are outrageous or absurd.
Important Cases on Irrationality:
a) Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948) (UK)
Facts: The Wednesbury Corporation imposed a condition restricting cinema opening times on Sundays.
Issue: Whether the condition was reasonable.
Holding: The court held the condition was not unreasonable and refused to interfere.
Significance: Established the "Wednesbury test" — only decisions so unreasonable as to be irrational are liable to be quashed.
b) R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Smith (1996) (UK)
Facts: A ban on gay individuals serving in the military.
Issue: Whether the policy was irrational.
Holding: The court found the policy irrational as it was based on outdated stereotypes.
Significance: Demonstrated irrationality can relate to discriminatory or illogical policies.
c) Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (1985) (GCHQ case) (UK)
Note: The case clarified that irrationality is a ground of judicial review but that some government decisions, e.g., national security, receive more deference.
4. Ground 3: Procedural Impropriety
Meaning:
Procedural impropriety involves failure to observe procedural rules or fairness requirements mandated by law, including:
Denial of the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem).
Bias or appearance of bias (nemo judex in causa sua).
Failure to follow statutory procedures.
Key points:
Procedural fairness is fundamental in administrative decisions.
Violation of procedural rules can invalidate decisions even if the substance is lawful.
Important Cases on Procedural Impropriety:
a) Ridge v. Baldwin (1964) (UK)
Facts: A police officer was dismissed without being given an opportunity to defend himself.
Issue: Whether the dismissal was lawful.
Holding: The House of Lords held the dismissal unlawful due to denial of natural justice.
Significance: Landmark case establishing the principle of audi alteram partem (right to a fair hearing).
b) R. v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy (1924) (UK)
Facts: A judge had a financial interest in a case but presided over it anyway.
Issue: Whether the decision was valid.
Holding: The court held the decision void due to bias.
Significance: Established the principle that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.
c) Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works (1863) (UK)
Facts: Authority demolished Cooper’s property without giving him a hearing.
Issue: Whether the demolition was lawful.
Holding: The court ruled the decision unlawful for failure to follow due process.
Significance: Early case emphasizing procedural fairness in administrative decisions.
d) R. v. Ministry of Defence, ex parte Smith (1996) (UK)
(Also cited under irrationality)
Highlighted that procedural fairness is necessary even in sensitive policy areas unless specifically excluded.
5. Summary Table of Grounds and Cases
| Ground | Description | Landmark Cases | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Illegality | Acting beyond legal authority or misinterpreting the law | Anisminic Ltd v. FCC (1969) | Decision made without legal power is invalid |
| R. v. Home Sec, ex parte Fire Brigades Union (1995) | Public authority must fulfill statutory duties | ||
| Irrationality | Decision so unreasonable no reasonable authority would make it | Associated Provincial Picture Houses (1948) | Wednesbury unreasonableness test |
| R. v. Sec of State for Home Dept, ex parte Smith (1996) | Courts protect against arbitrary decisions | ||
| Procedural Impropriety | Failure to observe procedural fairness or required processes | Ridge v. Baldwin (1964) | Right to fair hearing established |
| R. v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy (1924) | No bias or conflict of interest allowed |
6. Conclusion
Illegality ensures that public authorities act within their powers.
Irrationality guards against arbitrary, unreasonable decisions.
Procedural impropriety protects the right to a fair and unbiased process.
These grounds collectively maintain rule of law, prevent abuse of power, and safeguard individual rights against administrative arbitrariness.
RELATED Blog
0 comments