Parker V Charlotte City Council Case Study

Lord Diplock defined the ground illegality as the requirement for decision makers to understand the law that regulates their decision-making power and give its effect . Nevertheless, a decision can be held as illegal for different reasons. In the case Wheeler v Leicester City Council , the city council used their statutory powers to punish the rugby club for refusing to follow the council’s own views on the South African rugby boycott . In favour of the Club, House of Lords upheld that the council had used their powers for improper purposes and the decision was illegal. However, it is notable that while allowing the Club’s appeal, the House of Lords did not explicitly hold Browne-Wilkinson LJJ’s substantive view on fundamental freedoms of speech and conscience for illegality, that people are entitled to have different opinions to their officials, even when …show more content…
However, the distinction between illegality and irrationality (proportionality) remains less clear . A possible reason may be that the courts are frequently less systematic in their review and sometimes place greater attention on the “appealing” argument from the many other choices presented by the applicant, whether it relates to illegality or irrationality . Considering that irrationality concerns the substances of a decision that will allow an emphasis on the constitutional role of the judiciary, an unsystematic approach may not successfully uphold the rule of law as an important argument could be bypassed . For there to be sufficient accountability in public bodies, it can be contended the courts should first consider procedural impropriety and illegality since they are more concerned with the procedures that led to a decision, and only if the decision had passed the assessments, the court may rely on irrationality and proportionality