Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
31 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
The right to be informed of the case to be met |
R v Army Board of the Defence Council, ex parte Anderson (1992) |
|
|
The right to be informed of the case against you - except for national security |
R v HS, ex parte Agee and Hosenball (1977) |
|
|
The right to a reasonable time to prepare a response |
R v Thames Magistrates, ex parte Polemis (1974) |
|
|
The right to be heard |
R v Army Board of the Defence Council, ex parte Anderson (1992) again |
|
|
The right to cross examine |
R v Deputy Industrial Injuries commissioner, ex parte Moore (1965) |
|
|
The right to legal representation |
R v Hs, ex parte Tarrant (1985) |
|
|
Tarrant factors |
Seriousness of charge, likelihood of points of law arising, capacity of prisoner to present their own case, complexity of procedure, speed in decision making, fairness between both sides |
|
|
The right to reasons for a decision |
Magaw J, Re Poyser and Mills Arbitration (1964) - ‘proper, intelligible and adequate’ |
|
|
Reasons must also be good enough |
Save Britain’s Heritage v No 1 Poultry Ltd (1991) |
|
|
Legitimate Expectation and Substansive Rights - has a legitimate expectation been created? |
R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan (1999) |
|
|
Breaking a home for life promise to benefit a patient is not unfair (legitimate expectation and substantive rights) |
R (on the application of Collins) v Lincolnshire Health Authority (2001) |
|
|
Judicial review on the merits |
Associated Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation (1948) - Wednesbury unreasonableness test |
|
|
Wednesbury unreasonable still applies in situations without human rights implications |
R (Association of British Civilian Internees Far East Region) v Secretary of State for Defence (2003) |
|
|
Human Rights Implications - has a public body made a decision which interferes with someone’s human rights |
Daly’s Case (2001) 1. Was the right interfered with? 2. Why did the state interfere? What’s the States pressing social need? 3. Was the response proportionate? |
|
|
Simple Ultra Vires - lack of power |
A-G v Fulham Corporation (1921) |
|
|
Ultra vires- failure to complete a statutory duty |
R v Camden LBC ex parte Gillan (1988) |
|
|
Ultra Vires - error of jurisdictional fact |
R v HS ex parte Kharawaja (1984) |
|
|
No evidence rule |
Coleen Properties Ltd v Minister of Housing and local government (1971) |
|
|
Unlawful delegation - giving the decision to someone else to make |
Barnard v National Dock Labour Board (1953) |
|
|
Unlawful delegation- allowing the decision to be made by a part of the committee |
R v Liverpool City Council ex parte PAT (1984) |
|
|
Surrender or abdication of discretion |
Ellis v Dubowski (1921) |
|
|
Acting under dictation |
R v Coventry CC ex parte Phoenix Aviation (1995) |
|
|
Fettering discretion by policy |
British Oxygen Co Ltd v Minister of Technology (1971) |
|
|
Fettering discretion by contract or agreement |
Stringer v Minister of Housing and local government (1970) |
|
|
Abuse of discretion - irrelevancy |
Roberts v Hopwood (1925) |
|
|
Abuse of discretion- improper use - using the power to frustrate the enabling act |
Padfield v Minister of Agriculture (1968) |
|
|
Abuse of Discretion- improper use- using the power to achieve something other than the purpose of the enabling act |
Laker Airways v Department of Trade (1977) |
|
|
Where an action is made and makes two effects |
West minister Corporation v London and North Western Railway Co Ltd (1905) |
|
|
Actual bias |
R v Gough (1993) |
|
|
Direct interest |
Dimes v Grand Junction Canal Proprietors (1852) |
|
|
Apparent bias |
R (on the application of Al Hasan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2005) 1. Judge is presumed to be impartial 2. Decision is only quashed if a fair and impartial observer concludes there is a real danger the judge is biased |
