Procedural impropriety as a ground of judicial review
Procedural Impropriety
Procedural impropriety occurs when a public authority or decision-maker fails to follow the required legal procedures or breaches rules of natural justice while making a decision. It is one of the main grounds for judicial review, which ensures that decisions are made fairly and according to the law.
Two broad categories of procedural impropriety are:
Failure to observe procedural rules — This includes not following statutory procedures or regulations that are mandatory.
Breach of natural justice — This involves violations of principles like the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem) and the rule against bias (nemo judex in causa sua).
Key Case Laws on Procedural Impropriety
1. Ridge v Baldwin (1964) AC 40
Facts: Ridge, a police chief, was dismissed without being given an opportunity to defend himself against allegations of misconduct. The dismissal was made by a police authority without holding a hearing.
Legal Principle: This case is a landmark in establishing the principle of natural justice, particularly the right to a fair hearing before being deprived of a right or interest.
Judgment: The House of Lords held that Ridge’s dismissal was unlawful because the police authority failed to observe the rules of natural justice. This case firmly established that public authorities must give individuals a fair hearing before taking adverse decisions against them.
Significance: It clarified that a breach of natural justice (here, the failure to give a fair hearing) amounts to procedural impropriety and can invalidate a decision.
2. Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985) AC 374 (The GCHQ Case)
Facts: The government banned trade union activities at GCHQ without consulting the employees or unions first. The unions claimed this was a breach of natural justice.
Legal Principle: This case clarified when natural justice applies in the context of national security and public interest decisions.
Judgment: The House of Lords held that natural justice may apply to decisions by public authorities, but the government’s decision here was justified by national security concerns. However, the court accepted that procedural fairness is a general requirement unless explicitly excluded for specific reasons.
Significance: It reaffirmed the principle that procedural fairness is a fundamental ground for judicial review but recognized exceptions in special circumstances like national security.
3. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223
Facts: The Wednesbury Corporation imposed a condition on a cinema license which prohibited children from attending on Sundays. The cinema company challenged this as unreasonable.
Legal Principle: While primarily a case on reasonableness, it also touches on procedural fairness, as decisions must be made according to proper procedures and must not be irrational.
Judgment: The court held that a decision would be unlawful if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it, implicitly requiring that procedural fairness and rationality must be maintained.
Significance: The case is often cited when discussing the limits of lawful decision-making, including procedural impropriety when decisions are irrational or made without proper procedure.
4. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody (1994) 1 AC 531
Facts: Prisoners serving mandatory life sentences sought judicial review because the Home Secretary did not provide reasons for setting their minimum terms, depriving them of the opportunity to make representations.
Legal Principle: The case elaborated on the content of the right to a fair hearing—especially the right to be informed of the reasons and to make representations.
Judgment: The House of Lords held that the prisoners were entitled to be given reasons for the minimum terms set by the Home Secretary, so they could make meaningful representations.
Significance: This case clarified that procedural fairness often requires disclosure of reasons, enabling affected parties to understand the decision and respond to it.
5. R v Bow Street Magistrates, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) (1999) 1 AC 119
Facts: Lord Hoffmann, one of the judges hearing the case, had undisclosed links to Amnesty International, a party involved in the case.
Legal Principle: This case is crucial for the rule against bias — one of the core principles of natural justice.
Judgment: The House of Lords held that there was an appearance of bias and that Lord Hoffmann should have disclosed his links. The decision was quashed due to procedural impropriety.
Significance: It reaffirmed that even the appearance of bias or conflict of interest in decision-making can invalidate decisions under procedural impropriety.
Summary
Procedural Impropriety safeguards fair decision-making.
It covers failure to follow procedural rules and breach of natural justice.
Key elements include right to a fair hearing and absence of bias.
Cases like Ridge v Baldwin and Doody emphasize the right to be heard and reasons to be given.
GCHQ case highlights exceptions for national security.
Pinochet case highlights the importance of impartiality.
RELATED Blog
0 comments