Reviewing the concept of administrative justice: theoretical perspectives and realities
Reviewing the Concept of Administrative Justice: Theoretical Perspectives and Realities
What is Administrative Justice?
Administrative Justice broadly refers to the legal principles and processes that govern the exercise of public power by administrative agencies and authorities. It ensures that decisions made by government bodies are lawful, fair, and reasonable, and that individuals affected by such decisions have access to remedies.
Theoretical Perspectives on Administrative Justice
Rule of Law Theory
Administrative justice is fundamental to the rule of law, ensuring that public bodies act within the law and are accountable.
It demands legality, fairness, and reasoned decisions.
Prevents arbitrariness and abuse of power.
Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness
Emphasizes fair hearing (audi alteram partem) and absence of bias (nemo judex in causa sua).
Administrative decisions must observe procedural fairness to be just.
Theories often emphasize the protection of individual rights against government power.
Substantive Justice Perspective
Goes beyond procedure to question whether decisions are just and equitable in substance.
Highlights social justice and equitable treatment.
Calls for transparency and inclusiveness.
Access to Justice and Accountability
Focuses on accessibility of administrative remedies.
Importance of tribunals, ombudsmen, and judicial review.
Aims to empower citizens against complex bureaucracies.
Realities of Administrative Justice
Complexity: Modern administrative state is vast; fairness and consistency can be difficult.
Resource Constraints: Overburdened tribunals and courts affect quality of justice.
Formalism vs Flexibility: Balancing strict rules with practical administrative needs.
Judicial Review: Courts intervene when there is illegality or procedural unfairness but avoid micromanaging policy.
Technological and Procedural Innovations: E.g., online tribunals enhancing access but raising concerns on fairness.
Role of Courts in Administrative Justice
Courts maintain checks and balances through judicial review.
They enforce procedural fairness.
They protect fundamental rights against administrative excesses.
However, courts respect executive discretion in policy matters unless unreasonable or unlawful.
Key Case Laws Illustrating Administrative Justice
1. Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40 (House of Lords)
Facts: Chief constable dismissed without being given a chance to defend himself.
Held: The House of Lords emphasized the requirement of natural justice (fair hearing) before dismissal.
Significance: Reinforced procedural fairness in administrative decisions.
Reality Check: Demonstrated courts’ willingness to protect individuals from arbitrary administrative action.
2. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
Facts: Challenge to a local authority’s licensing condition considered unreasonable.
Held: Established the famous Wednesbury unreasonableness standard.
Significance: Courts will not interfere with administrative discretion unless decisions are irrational or perverse.
Reality Check: Reflects judicial restraint in reviewing policy-laden administrative decisions.
3. Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (the GCHQ case) [1985] AC 374
Facts: Government banned trade union membership at GCHQ without consultation, citing national security.
Held: The exercise of prerogative power is subject to judicial review, but national security justified exclusion of consultation.
Significance: Judicial review applies broadly but respects certain executive prerogatives.
Reality Check: Shows balance between administrative justice and government discretion in sensitive matters.
4. R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] UKHL 26
Facts: Prison policy allowed searching prisoners' cells without presence of the prisoner, raising privacy concerns.
Held: Courts applied proportionality test, ruling policy violated right to privacy.
Significance: Emphasized substantive fairness and proportionality in administrative actions.
Reality Check: Highlights increasing judicial role in assessing the substance, not just procedure.
5. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531
Facts: Prisoners challenged Home Secretary's failure to give reasons for sentence tariffs.
Held: Administrative decisions affecting rights require giving reasons to ensure fairness.
Significance: Established the right to reasoned decisions as part of fairness.
Reality Check: Promotes transparency and accountability in administrative justice.
6. R (on the application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51
Facts: Challenge to employment tribunal fees that restricted access to justice.
Held: Supreme Court held fees unlawful as they impeded access to justice.
Significance: Reaffirmed access to justice as a key component of administrative justice.
Reality Check: Addresses real-world barriers faced by litigants in administrative justice.
Summary Table
| Case | Key Principle | Impact on Administrative Justice |
|---|---|---|
| Ridge v Baldwin (1964) | Natural justice - fair hearing | Strengthened procedural fairness |
| Associated Provincial Picture Houses (1948) | Wednesbury unreasonableness | Judicial restraint in policy decisions |
| GCHQ Case (1985) | Judicial review & executive discretion | Balance between security and fairness |
| Daly (2001) | Proportionality & privacy | Substantive fairness in administrative acts |
| Doody (1994) | Right to reasons | Transparency & accountability |
| UNISON (2017) | Access to justice | Removal of barriers to administrative remedies |
Conclusion
Administrative justice embodies a dynamic interplay between theoretical ideals such as fairness, legality, and transparency, and pragmatic realities including resource limitations and the complexity of governance. The judiciary acts as a crucial guardian ensuring that public authorities act within their legal boundaries and treat individuals fairly.
While administrative justice seeks to protect individual rights, it also recognizes the need for executive discretion in governance. Judicial review and principles of natural justice serve as key tools in maintaining this balance, promoting good governance and democratic accountability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments