Administrative Law - Week 5	Grounds for Judicial Review - Procedural Impropriety		Hilary 2002
Introduction	This week we focus on fair procedures. Because this is administrative law we are chiefly interested in the fairness of administrative procedures. There are several complications, however. First, article 6 of the ECHR does not rely on the line drawn by national law between the administrative and the judicial (nor does it rely on the line drawn by national law between the criminal and the non-criminal). Consequently, we have to consider what the European Court of Human Rights has said about the scope of the various parts of article 6. Second, some common law rules do not distinguish between administrative and judicial decision-making. Consequently, the rules which apply in administrative cases may often have been most deeply discussed in cases about judicial decision-making (e.g. bias). Third, it would be a mistake to think of administrative decision-making as involving only a single legitimate form of procedure. Consequently, the common law has to set standards of fairness for a range of procedures, from prison discipline hearings, through planning decisions, to ‘The Bloody Sunday Inquiry’.
The Texts	P.P. Craig, Chs. 13 & 14 H.W.R. Wade & Forsyth, Chs. 13, 14 & 15. Cane, Ch. 8; Beatson & Matthews Chs. 7 & 8 *Harlow & Rawlings, Law and Administration (2^nd ed. 1997), Ch. 15
European Convention on Human Rights, Art. 6	*R (Alconbury Developments) v Secretary of State for the Environment [2001] 2 WLR 1389 Greenfield v Secretary of State for the Home Dept [2001] 1 WLR 1731 International Transport v Secretary of State for the Home Dept [2001] The Times, Dec 11
Bias - Nemo iudex in sua causa	*Porter v Magill [2002] 1 All ER 449 (HL), paras.83-115, esp. 100-105 In re Medicaments (No 2) [2001] 1 WLR 700 [*summarizes leading cases very well*] R v Gough [1993] AC 646 R v Secretary of State for the Environment ex p. Kirkstall Valley Campaign [1996] 3 All ER 304 (summarized in Locabail) R v Bow St. Metropolitan Stip Magistrate, ex p. Pinochet Ugarte (No. 2) [2000] 1 AC 119 Locabail (UK) v Bayfield [2000] 2 WLR 870, esp at. 879-889
Fair Hearing -	*Cooper v Wandsworth Board of Works (1863) 14 CB (NS) 180
Audi alteram partem	- Who is entitled to a fair hearing? **Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40 McInnes v Onslow-Fane [1978] 1 WLR 1520 [NB things have become more complex in the last 21 years!] *R v Secretary of State (Home), ex p Fayed [1997] 1 All ER 228, CA
	- How do courts decide what a fair hearing involves? (these cases are examples – read some of them) Mahon v Air New Zealand [1984] AC 808 Rees v Crane [1994] 1 All ER 833, PC Sir Richard Scott, “ Procedures at Inquiries - the Duty to be Fair”, (1995) 111 LQR 596 R v Lord Saville of Newdigate, ex p A [2000] 1 WLR 1855 R v GB of Dunraven School, ex p. B [2000] LGR 494 Re M (Child) (Secure Accommodation) [2001] 2 FLR 169, paras 24-5, 37-41
	- Fairness & Procedural Expectations (cross-reference, Substantive Legitimate Expectations) *Craig (4^th ed) pp. 611-635 *Attorney General for Hong Kong v Ng Yuen Shiu [1983] 2 AC 629 *CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374
	- Reasons *R v Home Secretary ex p. Doody [1994] 1 AC 531, and note subsequent cases in Craig, pp. 429-437 Padfield v MAFF [1968] AC 997 – NB - Lonrho v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [1989] 2 All ER 609, at 620f-g R v Sy of State for the Home Dept ex p McQuillan [1995] 4 All ER 400
	- Substantive Fairness *Review week 4 notes on substantive legitimate expectations Regina v National Lottery Commission, ex p Camelot Group plc [2001] EMLR 43; [2000] The Times, Oct 12
Strategic guidance	Two pieces of advice. This list assumes that you will try to work out what is going on mainly by reading the cases which are doing it … so … In practice, we might imagine that a claimant generally comes to court to argue that some particular element of a fair procedure was denied to him/her. Can you list the different elements that particular claimants might want?
Old exam questions and essay title	1995. “Under the traditional common law approach rights to procedural protection only arise when substantive interests are at stake.” Do you agree? Have the courts taken too narrow a view of the circumstances in which procedural protections apply? 1989. “Why have the courts found the fair hearing rule more problematic than the rule against bias? A number of reasons may be suggested, and they take us to the very centre of the basic theory of natural justice” (Cane). Discuss. 1986. Have the developments in the law relating to administrative decision-making procedure since Ridge v Baldwin been satisfactory? Written work for tutorial: Please write an answer to the 1986 Question (as if it was set in 2002).
Reading List Week 6		Back to Admin. Law Reading List Index