Irrationality as a ground of judicial review
Irrationality as a Ground of Judicial Review: Overview
Irrationality (sometimes called "Wednesbury unreasonableness") is a legal standard used by courts to review decisions made by public authorities. The court intervenes if the decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it.
The principle was firmly established in the case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948), where Lord Greene MR stated that a decision is irrational if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it.
Key Elements of Irrationality:
The decision must be so unreasonable that it defies logic or accepted moral standards.
The court does not substitute its own decision but checks if the decision is lawful.
It’s a high threshold, meaning courts are usually reluctant to interfere unless the decision is truly outrageous.
Case Law Illustrations:
1. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948)
Facts:
The Wednesbury Corporation granted a license to a cinema with a condition that no children under 15 years old could attend on Sundays. The cinema company argued this condition was unreasonable.
Held:
The court held that a decision is irrational if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it. The condition was not irrational as it was within the authority’s discretion.
Significance:
This case established the Wednesbury unreasonableness test, the foundation for irrationality as a ground for judicial review.
2. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Brind (1991)
Facts:
The Home Secretary banned broadcasting interviews with certain organizations linked to terrorism. Broadcasters challenged the decision as irrational.
Held:
The court upheld the Home Secretary's decision, stating it was not irrational. Although strict, irrationality applies where the decision is outrageous in its defiance of logic.
Significance:
Reinforced the high threshold for irrationality—courts will not interfere unless decisions are outrageously unreasonable.
3. R v Ministry of Defence, ex parte Smith (1996)
Facts:
A member of the armed forces was discharged because he was homosexual. He challenged the decision as irrational and discriminatory.
Held:
The court found the decision irrational, as it was based on an unjustifiable policy, especially when there was no evidence it affected military efficiency.
Significance:
Shows that irrationality can apply to discriminatory or arbitrary policies lacking justification.
4. R v Liverpool City Council, ex parte Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators’ Association (1997)
Facts:
The council refused to issue taxi licenses to an applicant who met all requirements, due to pressure from local taxi firms.
Held:
The court held the decision was irrational because it was influenced by improper considerations and was unreasonable.
Significance:
Demonstrates that irrationality can be used where decisions are made for improper reasons or without regard to relevant factors.
5. R (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2001)
Facts:
A prisoner challenged a policy allowing prison officers to examine legally privileged correspondence.
Held:
The House of Lords held that the policy was irrational because it unjustifiably infringed prisoners' rights without adequate safeguards.
Significance:
Illustrates that irrationality can protect fundamental rights and requires proportionality in decisions affecting rights.
Summary of the principle through these cases:
| Case | Principle Established |
|---|---|
| Wednesbury (1948) | Decision is irrational if no reasonable authority could make it |
| Brind (1991) | High threshold: irrationality means outrageous unreasonableness |
| Ex parte Smith (1996) | Irrationality applies to unjustified, discriminatory policies |
| Ex parte Liverpool Taxi (1997) | Decisions influenced by improper considerations are irrational |
| Daly (2001) | Irrationality protects fundamental rights and demands proportionality |
RELATED Blog
0 comments