‘Judicial review leaves too much discretion to the judges. It is the executive, not the courts, which is tasked with the business of government.’ Critically discuss this statement
‘To claim that judicial review stems from the will of Parliament is little more than a constitutional fiction. The ultra vires doctrine is incapable of explaining the real nature and scope of modern judicial review.’
Consider the extent to which you agree with this statement.
Examine the debate amongst academics on whether or not ultra vires is the basis for judicial review (Forsyth, Craig, Oliver). The critique of ultra vires includes points such as it does not explain review of non-statutory powers and bodies (CCSU, Datafin) or how the ouster clause in Anisminic was circumvented.
The National Clown Association (NCA) is a self-regulatory body made up of professional clowns within the UK. The NCA lays down a Code of Conduct for its members. A disciplinary committee (DC) hears complaints against individuals alleged to have breached the Code of Conduct; it has the power to expel clowns found guilty of serious misdemeanours. Clumsy is the NCA’s current President; Shifty is the DC’s presiding officer.
Upon hearing about a vicious ringside attack by Grumpy against Dozy (both members of the NCA), Clumsy sends a letter to Grumpy stating ‘This is a final warning. The NCA will not take any formal action against you on this occasion, but if there are further instances of violence, we will treat them very seriously’. Soon after, Dozy lodges a complaint against Grumpy. At an emergency meeting, the DC decides to expel Grumpy from the NCA with immediate effect. Shifty refuses to discuss the detailed reasons for that decision, on the grounds that it might expose frightened witnesses to retaliation by Grumpy.
Shifty recently applied for a job at the same large touring circus that Dozy sometimes works with.
Advise Grumpy as to his rights under administrative law and possible remedies via Part 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Redbrick University Student Radio (RUSR) have been informed by the Vice-Chancellor of Redbrick University that they must drop their interview with the university’s former Director of Campus Services. The interview was intended to cover the subject of the contract with Kopf plc to take over the delivery of campus services for the university. Failure to comply will mean that the University will seek an injunction in the High Court to stop the broadcast. In addition it will also exercise its powers under the University Charter to withdraw RUSR’s funding, use of university buildings and facilities and initiate disciplinary proceedings against students who were working on this story as well as the management committee of RUSR for bringing the university into disrepute. The university says that the former Director of Campus Services is not only making inaccurate statements about the contract negotiations, but is also disclosing commercially sensitive details which were confidential.
The RUSR Management Committee believe that the interview contains accurate information about the contract negotiations including payment made to two members of the University’s Senior Management Team to award the contract to Kopf plc.
They seek your legal advice on whether they could successfully oppose an injunction relying on the Human Rights Act 1998.
These solutions may offer step-by-step problem-solving explanations or good writing examples that include modern styles of formatting and construction of bibliographies out of text citations and references. Students may use these solutions for personal skill-building and practice. Unethical use is strictly forbidden.1. ‘Judicial review leaves too much discretion to the judges. It is the executive, not the Courts, which is tasked with the business of government.’ Critically discuss this statement
In UK law, the debate on the applicability of the judicial review has been a viable academic and legal topic for the past few decades. The judicial review is the process through which the Courts in England and Wales supervise the translation, implementation, and the impacts of the administrative laws. In UK law system, the constitution allows individuals and organizations to implement regulatory laws under two broad categories namely ultra and intra vires. Most scholars argue that Ultra vires are the principle on which the courts form grounds for judicial reviews . However, the law does not clearly define the process on which these aspects are applicable in reversing or condemning administrative laws thus leaving a gap for intellectual debate. In the course of the debate, the law specialists and policy makers have identified two major opposing blocks of opinions to which they subscribe.
The primary aspects that lead to the intellectual debate are the vague assertion of which clause explicitly allows for the judicial review. Although the action is legal under the Ultra vires, it is also included in the common law . The common law system allows the judges, the courts, and tribunals to make amendments to the law translations and incorporate referral points that might change the decisions of the future cases. As such, the common law, as implemented in UK law system changes the adoptions outlined by the Parliament, which are not an integral part of the applicability of Ultra vires . The passage raises the question of whether the judges, through the ultra vires and common law has the power to affect the laws enacted by the legislation. The amendments to the administrative laws posit that there is no court that has the powers to change any clause adopted by the parliament, but can modify the translation under special conditions, which include the violation of individual’s right. However, the clause prohibits any amendment or review of decisions that follows the legislative laws introduced by the parliament....
By purchasing this solution you'll be able to access the following files: