Administrative Law - Week 4 |
Judicial Review of Discretion –
part 2
HUMAN RIGHTS CASES |
Hilary
2002 |
|
|
|
|
|
Introduction |
This
week we focus on the special rules governing judicial review of discretion
where one party alleges the possibility of an infringement of human rights.
In reading this list (and any additional cases decided between now and your
Finals!) it is important to bear in mind the fact that you will be examined
on what the cases tell us about judicial review of discretion and not
about what the cases tell us about particular convention rights. Judges, by
contrast, are obliged to decide questions about particular convention rights
and do not always expressly set out their views about the general topic
of judicial review of discretion. Consequently, when you read and note the
cases try to concentrate on the general topic rather than the particular
rights. (I’ve tried to classify the cases, but, naturally, some cases
belong under more than one heading and some would quarrel with my
classification!) |
||
|
|
|
|
The
Texts |
Craig,
pp. 546-577, and re-visit notes on ch. 18 |
||
|
|
|
|
Common
Law |
R
v Cambridge Health Authority ex p. B [1995] 2 All ER 129 R
v Ministry of Defence, ex p. Smith [1996] 1 All ER 257 *Smith
& Grady v UK, 27 Sept 1999, ECHR; (1999) 29 EHRR 493 (www.echr.coe.int) R
v Lord Chancellor, ex p. Witham [1997] 2 All ER 779 |
||
|
|
|
|
Human Rights Act 1998 |
*Sections
2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 (read these carefully) |
||
|
Using
Interpretation to Limit the Scope of the Power Granted
R
v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p. Simms [2000] 2 AC 15 |
|
|
|
Using
Interpretation to Limit the Scope of the Right
*R (Alconbury) v Secretary of State for the
Environment, Transport & Regions [2001] 2 WLR 1389 Brown v Stott [2001] 2 All ER 97, at 113-117 R
(Pretty) v. DPP [2001] 3 WLR 1598, esp. Bingham, Steyn, and Hope (NB
para 76) |
||
|
Proportionality *R
(Daly) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] 2 AC 532 Craig,
“The Courts, The Human Rights Act and Judicial Review” (2001) 117 LQR 589 *Gough
v. Chief Const of Derby Constabulary [2001] 3 WLR 1392, at paras. 72-81 *R
(P) v. Sec of St for the Home Dept [2001] 1 WLR 2002, at paras. 54-66, 99-106 R
(Anna Ford) v. Press Complaints Commission [2002] EMLR 5 |
||
|
‘Public
body’ – cross-reference ‘Scope of Judicial Review’
(Week 1) Law
Com No. 266, “Damages Under The Human Rights Act 1998”, paras. 2.11 – 2.13 *Donoghue
v Poplar Housing [2001] 4 All ER 604, paras. 55-66 (67-78 also interesting) *Heather
v Leonard Cheshire Foundation (2001) ACD 401 |
||
|
‘Victim’
– cross-reference Standing (Week 6) Law
Com No. 266, “Damages Under The Human Rights Act 1998”, para. 2.15 |
||
|
|
|
|
Strategic guidance |
Two
pieces of advice.
|
||
|
|
|
|
Essay Title: |
Compare the intensity of judicial review of discretionary
administrative decisions in cases possibly involving human rights before and
after the Human Rights Act 1998. [Complete
the essay in no more than one hour (45 mins to write, 15 mins to check
things in notes)] |
||
|
|
||