Ombudsman investigations of discretionary misuse
🔍 Ombudsman Investigations of Discretionary Misuse
What is Discretionary Power?
Discretionary power is the authority granted to public officials or agencies to make decisions within certain legal boundaries. This allows flexibility, but also carries risks of misuse or abuse if not exercised fairly or reasonably.
Role of the Ombudsman in Discretionary Misuse
The Ombudsman is an independent authority tasked with investigating complaints against public authorities. When a decision involves discretion, the Ombudsman checks:
Whether the discretion was exercised according to law.
If the decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, or based on irrelevant considerations.
Whether the public authority followed principles of natural justice.
If there is evidence of bad faith, bias, or improper motive.
Legal Principles Governing Discretionary Misuse
Fettering of discretion: Authorities must not rigidly follow policies or rules that prevent genuine consideration.
Unreasonableness (Wednesbury principle): A decision is unreasonable if no reasonable authority could have made it.
Improper purpose: Using discretion for a reason outside the statutory objective is misuse.
Failure to consider relevant factors or considering irrelevant factors.
⚖️ Case Law: Ombudsman Investigations of Discretionary Misuse
1. R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody (1994) 1 AC 531 (UK)
Case Summary:
Prisoners were denied parole without being given reasons.
The question was whether the Home Secretary had properly exercised discretion and followed procedural fairness.
Ombudsman/Legal Finding:
Discretion must be exercised judicially and with fairness.
Although discretion is wide, failure to provide reasons amounted to procedural unfairness.
This set the foundation that even discretionary decisions require transparency and fairness.
Key Takeaway:
The Ombudsman examines not just outcomes but the process of exercising discretion.
2. Commonwealth Ombudsman Investigation into Immigration Detention (Australia)
Case Summary:
The Ombudsman investigated discretionary detention decisions for immigration detainees held beyond prescribed periods.
Several cases found misuse where officials detained individuals without considering alternative options or humanitarian factors.
Finding:
Detention was unlawful or unreasonable where discretion was exercised without considering relevant factors (e.g., vulnerability, risk).
Ombudsman recommended release or reconsideration.
Key Takeaway:
Discretion must consider all relevant circumstances; failure to do so can be flagged as misuse.
3. Ombudsman Investigation: Local Authority’s Refusal to Grant Housing Assistance (UK)
Case Summary:
A local council refused housing assistance citing a rigid policy.
The Ombudsman found that the council fettered its discretion by applying policy inflexibly, failing to consider individual circumstances.
Finding:
The council’s failure to properly exercise discretion amounted to maladministration.
Recommended reconsideration and compensation.
Key Takeaway:
Public bodies must consider each case on its merits rather than blindly apply policy.
4. R v. Port of London Authority, ex parte Kynoch Ltd (1918) 1 KB 740
Case Summary:
The Port Authority denied a license based on reasons unrelated to the statutory purpose.
The court held that discretion exercised for an improper purpose is invalid.
Relevance:
Ombudsmen rely on this principle when investigating discretionary misuse.
If decision-makers act with ulterior motives or irrelevant considerations, Ombudsman may intervene.
5. New Zealand Ombudsman Report on Police Discretion (2010)
Case Summary:
Complaints arose regarding police exercising discretion in issuing search warrants and detentions.
Ombudsman found some officers failed to properly justify decisions or consider alternatives.
Outcome:
Recommended clearer guidelines and training on discretionary powers.
Highlighted the need for accountability in discretionary decision-making.
6. Re Application by an Interested Party [1984] 1 WLR 314
Case Summary:
A statutory body refused to grant a license without adequate reasoning.
The court held that discretion must be exercised in a manner consistent with the enabling statute and procedural fairness.
Ombudsman Role:
Investigations into similar cases focus on whether decision-makers have followed statutory guidelines and respected fairness principles.
📌 Summary Table
| Case | Issue | Ombudsman Finding/Legal Principle | Outcome/Remedy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Doody (1994) | Denial of parole without reasons | Need for fairness and transparency in discretion | Requirement to provide reasons |
| Australian Immigration Detention | Detention without considering alternatives | Unreasonable exercise of discretion | Release or review recommended |
| UK Housing Assistance | Rigid policy application | Fettering discretion by inflexible policy | Reconsideration and compensation |
| Kynoch Ltd (1918) | Improper purpose in decision | Discretion exercised outside statutory purpose invalid | Decision quashed |
| NZ Police Discretion (2010) | Unjustified exercise of police discretion | Need for accountability and guidelines | Training and policy reforms |
| Re Application by Interested Party (1984) | License refusal without reasons | Discretion must align with statute and fairness | Decision review required |
Conclusion
The Ombudsman’s role in investigating discretionary misuse is crucial for ensuring that public powers are exercised fairly, lawfully, and reasonably. Across jurisdictions, case law supports that discretion is not unfettered — it must be exercised according to law, relevant considerations, and procedural fairness. When misused, Ombudsman investigations typically lead to recommendations for decision reviews, policy changes, or compensation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments