Judicial review of executive decisions
Judicial Review of Executive Decisions
I. What is Judicial Review of Executive Decisions?
Judicial Review is the process by which courts examine the legality of executive decisions or actions.
It ensures that executive authorities act within the law and respect procedural fairness, natural justice, and constitutional limits.
The judiciary can invalidate or quash decisions made beyond legal authority (ultra vires), involving errors of law, abuse of power, or procedural unfairness.
Judicial review acts as a check on executive power and safeguards the rule of law.
II. Grounds for Judicial Review of Executive Decisions
Courts typically review executive actions on these grounds:
Illegality: Decision made without legal authority or contrary to law.
Irrationality/Wednesbury unreasonableness: Decision so unreasonable no reasonable person could have made it.
Procedural Impropriety: Failure to follow fair procedures or natural justice.
Error of Fact or Law: Mistakes affecting jurisdiction or validity.
Proportionality (in some jurisdictions): Decision must be proportionate to the aim pursued.
III. Key Case Law Illustrating Judicial Review of Executive Decisions
1. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 (UK)
Summary:
This English case established the principle of Wednesbury unreasonableness.
A local authority imposed a condition restricting children under 15 from attending Sunday film screenings.
The Court held that a decision would only be quashed if it was so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it.
Significance:
This case set the threshold for irrationality in judicial review.
It confirms courts will not interfere simply because they disagree with the decision but only if it is perverse or unreasonable.
2. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332 (Australia)
Summary:
The High Court of Australia held that an administrative tribunal’s decision was affected by jurisdictional error because it failed to apply the correct legal test.
The decision-maker misunderstood the statutory test and made a legally flawed decision.
Significance:
Reaffirmed that judicial review includes examining errors of law made by executive bodies.
Emphasized courts’ role in ensuring decisions are made according to law, not arbitrarily or mistakenly.
3. Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40 (UK)
Summary:
The Chief Constable of Brighton was dismissed by the police authority without a hearing.
The House of Lords held that the dismissal was unlawful because the Chief Constable was denied natural justice and procedural fairness.
Significance:
A landmark case establishing the principle that procedural fairness is mandatory in administrative decisions affecting rights.
Demonstrates judicial willingness to review and quash decisions where fair process is denied.
4. Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 (GCHQ Case, UK)
Summary:
The UK government banned trade union membership at the Government Communications Headquarters for national security reasons.
The Court recognized that the royal prerogative was subject to judicial review.
However, on grounds of national security, the decision was upheld.
Significance:
Established that even prerogative powers are reviewable by courts.
Introduced the concept of public interest balancing in judicial review.
5. Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 (UK)
Summary:
The Foreign Compensation Commission made a decision alleged to be based on a misunderstanding of the law.
The House of Lords held that errors of law made by decision-makers render decisions invalid and are subject to judicial review, even where a statute purports to oust review.
Significance:
Expanded the scope of judicial review to include jurisdictional errors of law.
Clarified that privative clauses cannot protect decisions affected by jurisdictional errors.
6. Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476 (Australia)
Summary:
The case involved a privative clause attempting to restrict judicial review of immigration decisions.
The High Court held that parliament cannot exclude judicial review of jurisdictional errors.
Confirmed that judicial review is a constitutional guarantee against unlawful executive action.
Significance:
Reinforces that judicial review protects individuals from executive overreach.
Privative clauses limiting judicial review have constitutional limits.
7. Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 (Australia)
Summary:
Kioa challenged the refusal of a visa on the basis that the decision-maker failed to provide procedural fairness.
The High Court held that procedural fairness applies to executive decisions affecting rights or legitimate expectations.
Decision-makers must give affected persons an opportunity to respond.
Significance:
Confirms the role of natural justice in executive decision-making.
Emphasizes that judicial review can quash decisions made without fairness.
IV. Summary Table of Principles with Cases
| Principle | Case Example | Key Takeaway |
|---|---|---|
| Irrationality | Wednesbury (1948) | Courts intervene only for perverse/unreasonable decisions |
| Error of Law | Anisminic (1969), Li (2013) | Errors of law invalidate decisions |
| Procedural Fairness | Ridge v Baldwin (1964), Kioa (1985) | Fair hearing and natural justice required |
| Review of Prerogative | GCHQ Case (1985) | Even prerogative powers subject to review |
| Privative Clauses & Review | Plaintiff S157/2002 (2003) | Parliament cannot exclude judicial review of jurisdictional error |
V. Conclusion
Judicial review is a cornerstone of the rule of law, ensuring executive decisions are lawful, reasonable, and fair. The courts provide a vital check on administrative discretion and executive authority through well-established principles and case law.
The landmark cases above demonstrate how courts balance respecting executive expertise with protecting individual rights and legal boundaries.
RELATED Blog
0 comments