Grounds of review: legality, proportionality, equality
Grounds of Judicial Review
Judicial review allows courts to examine the actions of public authorities to ensure they comply with the law. The main grounds of review include:
1. Legality
Legality means that public authorities must act within the powers granted to them by law (also called ultra vires doctrine). Any action beyond or in misuse of the given powers is unlawful.
Authorities cannot act outside their statutory or constitutional authority.
They must follow the procedures prescribed by law.
Decisions must be based on relevant considerations and not on irrelevant factors.
2. Proportionality
Proportionality is a principle that restricts government actions to those that are necessary and balanced in achieving a legitimate aim.
The action must be suitable to achieve the objective.
It must be necessary—no less restrictive means should be available.
It must strike a fair balance between the interests of the state and the rights of the individual.
Proportionality is especially important in human rights and constitutional law cases.
3. Equality
Equality or non-discrimination requires that like cases be treated alike unless there is a justifiable reason to differentiate.
Public bodies cannot discriminate unfairly.
Decisions must be rational and based on relevant distinctions.
Differential treatment must have an objective and reasonable justification.
Case Laws Illustrating the Grounds of Review
1. Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (1985) (GCHQ Case) – UK House of Lords
Ground: Legality
Facts: The government closed the GCHQ without consultation citing national security.
Issue: Whether the government acted within lawful powers.
Ruling: The Court held that even prerogative powers are subject to judicial review on grounds of legality, except in matters of national security.
Significance: Affirmed that public authorities must act within their legal authority and follow fair procedures, establishing the principle of legality.
2. Bank Mellat v. HM Treasury (2013) – UK Supreme Court
Ground: Proportionality
Facts: The UK government imposed sanctions on Bank Mellat restricting its operations.
Issue: Whether the restrictions were proportionate to the legitimate aim of national security.
Ruling: The Court held that the sanctions were disproportionate as the restrictions went beyond what was necessary.
Significance: Reinforced proportionality as a key ground for reviewing executive action impacting rights.
3. R (Begum) v. Headteacher and Governors of Denbigh High School (2006) – UK House of Lords
Ground: Proportionality and Equality
Facts: A Muslim student challenged the school’s ban on wearing the jilbab.
Issue: Whether the school’s uniform policy was a disproportionate interference with religious freedom and discriminatory.
Ruling: The policy was proportionate and justified for maintaining school discipline and equality.
Significance: Demonstrated balancing of individual rights with institutional interests under proportionality and equality principles.
4. Dudgeon v. United Kingdom (1981) – European Court of Human Rights
Ground: Equality
Facts: Northern Ireland law criminalized homosexual acts.
Issue: Whether the law violated the right to private life and equality.
Ruling: The Court found the law discriminatory and unjustifiably violated equality and privacy rights.
Significance: Established that equality requires protection against discriminatory laws, especially concerning minority rights.
5. R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Daly (2001) – UK House of Lords
Ground: Proportionality and Legality
Facts: Prisoners challenged a blanket policy allowing officers to search their cells in their absence.
Issue: Whether the policy was lawful and proportionate interference with prisoners’ rights.
Ruling: The Court ruled the policy was disproportionate and unlawful.
Significance: Shows courts applying both legality and proportionality to protect individual rights against administrative overreach.
6. R v. Birmingham City Council, ex parte Equal Opportunities Commission (1989) – UK Court of Appeal
Ground: Equality
Facts: Council’s housing allocation policy was challenged for discriminatory effect against women.
Issue: Whether the policy violated equality principles.
Ruling: The Court held that policies must not discriminate indirectly and must meet equality obligations.
Significance: Reinforces that equality includes preventing indirect discrimination.
Summary
| Ground | Meaning | Key Features |
|---|---|---|
| Legality | Acting within legal authority | No ultra vires, follow procedures |
| Proportionality | Measures must be necessary and balanced | Suitability, necessity, fair balance |
| Equality | Non-discrimination and fair treatment | Like cases treated alike, justified differentiation |
RELATED Blog
0 comments