Administrative Law - Week 2	Judicial Review – Errors of Law, Errors of Fact		Hilary 2002
Introduction	This week we are looking at the role of courts in reviewing how inferior bodies have interpreted the law and decided the facts. Two questions that arise are: Which bodies should be subject to this review? What should be the nature of this review? This area of the law is often referred to as “Jurisdiction” – the label is one that made most sense at a previous stage in legal development, the idea being that the review court was keeping the bodies ‘in their lawful spheres’.
The Texts	P.P. Craig, Administrative Law (4th ed.), Chs. 15, 20 & 24 P. Cane, Ch. 6. De Smith, Woolf & Jowell, Judicial Review of Administrative Action, (5th ed., 1995), Ch. 5
Errors of Law (‘Jurisdiction’)	*Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147, HL South East Asia Fire Bricks v NMMPMEU [1981] AC 363, PC Re Racal Communications [1981] AC 374, HL *Page v Hull University Visitor [1993] AC 682, [1993] 1 All ER 97, HL *R v Monopolies & Mergers Commission, ex p. South Yorks Transport [1993] 1 All ER 289, HL Williams v Bedwellty Justices [1996] 3 All ER 737, HL, at 742b-744g Law or fact? R v S of St for the Home Dept, ex p. Adan [1999] 3 WLR 1274, headnote, and *1292-1296, esp. 1293D-G
Classic (and more recent) Articles on Jurisdiction	D. Gordon (1929) 45 LQR 458; B. Gould [1970] Public Law 358 *J. Beatson, “The Scope of Judicial Review for Error of Law” (1984) 4 OxJLS 22 J. Laws, “Illegality: The Problem of Jurisdiction”, Ch. 4 in Supperstone & Goudie (eds.), Judicial Review (2^nd ed.) *Craig, “Jurisdiction, Judicial Control & Agency Autonomy”, Ch. 7 in Loveland (ed), A Special Relationship? (OUP) I. Hare, “Sep. of Powers & JR for Error of Law” in Forsyth & Hare, The Golden Metwand & the Crooked Cord (OUP) *T. Endicott, “Questions of Law” (1998) 114 LQR 292
The Consequence of an Error of Law - Void, Null, Voidable, Invalid?	*C. Forsyth, “The Metaphysic of Nullity”, in Forsyth & Hare, The Golden Metwand & the Crooked Cord (OUP) Boddington v British Transport Police [1999] 2 AC 143, HL Secretary of State for Defence v Percy [1999] 1 All ER 732, at 739-744c. R v Governor of Brockhill Prison, ex p. Evans (No. 2) [2000] 3 WLR 843
Ouster	Harlow & Rawlings, Law and Administration (2^nd ed. 1997), pp. 52-60 Supreme Court Act 1981, s. 29(3), on which see Rose LJ at [2000] 1 WLR 766C-F
Review of Findings of Fact (NB Craig, pp 488-496)	*R v Nat Bell Liquors [1922] 2 A.C. 128, at 151-154 (N.B. Craig (4^th), pp. 489-491) R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p. Khawaja [1984] AC 74, HL R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p. Bugdaycay [1987] AC 514, HL *Tan Te Lam v Superintendent of Tai A Chau Detention Centre [1996] 4 All ER 256, 266g-268g, PC *R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p. Turgut [2001] 1 All ER 719, headnote and p. *729 *Alconbury [2001] 2 All ER 929, HL, paras. 53-4 (Slynn), 61-2 (Nolan), 107-117 (Hoffmann), 169 (Clyde) *T. Jones [1990] Public Law 507
Strategic Guidance	Students often treat this week’s work as about what happens if a decision-maker makes a mistake of law (or a mistake of fact). But ... isn’t there a prior question: Who has the right to determine whether something is a mistake of law (or fact)? (i.e. Who gets to decide what is a mistake and what is right?) How? … Why? The articles are important in understanding what all the fuss is about. BUT some of the classic (and recent) articles have been overtaken by the caselaw, to some extent. Writing the essay – aim for analysis not narrative. You shouldn’t need more than 5-6 sides. No textbook summaries! One side of the paper only, please.
Essay Title:	“English law has reached a stage where there is extensive review for errors of law and very limited review for errors of fact. This stage will prove to be merely a ‘passing phase’. The rules are not sustainable.” Discuss.
Reading List Week 3		Back to Admin. Law Reading List Index