Wednesbury principle of unreasonableness
Wednesbury Principle of Unreasonableness
What is the Wednesbury Principle?
The Wednesbury principle comes from the 1948 English case Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation. It is a cornerstone doctrine in judicial review concerning unreasonableness of administrative decisions.
The principle states that a decision by a public authority will be unreasonable (and thus liable to be quashed by the courts) if it is so irrational that no reasonable authority could have ever come to it.
Origin Case
1. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation (1948)
Facts:
Wednesbury Corporation granted a cinema licence on condition that no children under 15 be admitted on Sundays. The cinema challenged this as unreasonable.
Holding:
The Court held that a decision would only be unlawful if it was so unreasonable that no reasonable person acting reasonably could have made it.
Significance:
Established the "Wednesbury unreasonableness" test—a high threshold requiring a decision to be “perverse” or “irrational” to be overturned.
Interpretation of Wednesbury Principle
It is not enough for the court to disagree with the decision.
The decision must be so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person would have made it.
The courts maintain deference to administrative discretion, only intervening in extreme cases.
Key Case Laws Developing the Wednesbury Principle
2. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Brind (1991)
Facts:
The Home Secretary banned political broadcasts by certain groups on television.
Holding:
The court applied the Wednesbury principle and held the ban was within the Home Secretary’s discretion and not unreasonable.
Significance:
Reaffirmed that courts should be cautious and defer to executive judgment unless a decision is utterly unreasonable.
3. Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985) (GCHQ case)
Facts:
Government banned trade union membership at GCHQ without consultation.
Holding:
The Court held that while the decision was within prerogative powers, it could be subject to judicial review for irrationality.
Significance:
Expanded the Wednesbury test’s application to “irrationality” in the context of prerogative powers, reinforcing the high threshold but confirming judicial oversight.
4. R v Ministry of Defence, ex parte Smith (1996)
Facts:
A homosexual soldier challenged the Ministry’s policy barring gays from serving.
Holding:
The court upheld the policy as not Wednesbury unreasonable, despite disagreement with it.
Significance:
Demonstrated that courts rarely substitute their own views for policy decisions unless irrational.
5. R v East Sussex County Council, ex parte Reprotech (Pebsham) Ltd (2002)
Facts:
Council refused planning permission based on a policy not applied rigidly.
Holding:
The Court applied Wednesbury unreasonableness but found the decision lawful.
Significance:
Clarified that discretion must be exercised reasonably and not rigidly, but the threshold for unreasonableness remains high.
6. R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2001)
Facts:
Prisoner challenged a policy allowing officers to search cells without presence during legal correspondence.
Holding:
The Court applied a proportionality test (higher than Wednesbury) and found the policy disproportionate.
Significance:
Marked a shift in some cases from the strict Wednesbury test to proportionality especially in cases involving fundamental rights.
Summary of the Wednesbury Principle
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Origin | Wednesbury (1948) |
| Test | Decision is unreasonable if no reasonable authority could make it |
| Standard | High threshold — courts defer to administrative discretion |
| Application | Mainly in judicial review of administrative decisions |
| Criticism | Too deferential; sometimes replaced by proportionality test |
Practical Meaning
The Wednesbury principle safeguards administrative discretion but guards against arbitrary decisions.
It balances judicial review with respect for executive/agency expertise.
Courts intervene only in “outrageous” or “perverse” cases.
Conclusion
The Wednesbury principle remains a fundamental doctrine in administrative law. While modern judicial review increasingly employs proportionality, Wednesbury’s high threshold for unreasonableness still applies broadly, particularly in policy-heavy and politically sensitive decisions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments