The Human Rights Act 1998 (the “1998 Act”) has implemented the European Convention on Human Rights (Convention). Section 3(1) of the 1998 Act provides that the primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect, ‘so far as it is possible to do so’, in a manner compatible with the Convention rights. Section 3(2)(b) and (c) provide that the compatible reading “does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible” primary legislation and subordinate legislation. Section 4(1) gives authority to the court to determine this compatibility in regard to a primary legislation. Section 4(2) provides that the court ‘may’ make a declaration if a provision of a legislation is not compatible with a Convention right.
This essay will critically analyse Section 3 and Section of 4 to determine whether the judicial review power challenges the basic UK constitutional principles, in particular Parliamentary Sovereignty. This essay proposes that it does not. Rather it complements Parliamentary Sovereignty.
Parliamentary Sovereignty means that the Parliament is the supreme legal authority, which can enact or repeal a law. The courts cannot overrule any legislation. The Parliament cannot pass laws that restricts or prohibit future Parliaments from changing the laws. The Diceyan concept of Parliamentary sovereignty provides for the supreme power of the Parliament, which alone could limit its own law-making power. Cases such as Cheney v Conn and British Railways Board v Pickin conform to this principle. In the former case, the High Court held the UK Parliament has the ultimate supremacy in regard to challenging a statute and that the law passed by the Parliament is the highest form of law. In the latter case, the House of Lords held courts must consider and apply the Acts and they cannot challenge the validity of the Acts.
The UK Parliament centralises all the powers. However, there are arguments and events that suggest a limitation on Parliamentary Sovereignty. For example, it is claimed that many legal principles and case laws were established after the UK joined the EU and hence, the UK is bound by EU laws and the rulings of ECJ and ECtHR. For example, reading the rulings and Section 4 of the 1998, cases rulings such as Van Gend en Loos and Costa, provide that any EU domestic laws cannot override EU law. Section 4 of the 1998 Act empowers the court to declare a provision incompatible with ECHR rights. Thus, in considering the UK exit from the EU, the courts may consolidate more power to constraint the UK Parliament. Alternatively, the UK Parliament may not need to follow or adopt EU laws and case laws thereby retaining its sovereignty.
The role of the courts in determinating the question of compatibility could be reviewed from the four rules of judicial interpretation. Firstly, the literal rule requires courts to give their plain, ordinary or literal meaning to statutory words. This conforms to Parliamentary Sovereignty.
Secondly, according to the Golden rule, if the first rule results to an absurd result, the court may depart from the literal meaning to avoid absurdity or of injustice. This conforms to Section 3(1) phrase, ‘so far as it is possible to do so’, in a manner compatible with the Convention rights.
Thirdly, the mischief rule provides more discretion to the court to identify any gap of or mischief in a law before its enactment. This rule is more relevant to the current question being analysed in this essay. The reason is that the discretionary review may bring uncertainties with attempt to create legal meaning of a legislation. However, it does not affect sovereignty as all the law-making power is centralised with the Parliament and that this gap finding is regarding a law before enactment. This rule confirms with Section 3(2)(b) and (c) of the 1998 Act.
Fourthly, the purposive approach allows flexibility of interpretation to meet changing social demands by allowing interpretation to find the true meaning of the legislation. However, this approach may create a tension due to different interpretation that may threaten the sovereignty principle. Alternatively and appropriately, this approach conforms with the purpose of Section 4 that is to intervene where a situation is not predictable or where the language is ambiguous.
To conclude, the extent of judicial review is limited to ‘so far as it is possible to do so’ and does not affect any law in existence passed by the Parliament. Hence, parliamentary sovereignty is retained and the judicial review power complements and enforces this principle.
The Human Rights Act 1998
This essay will explore the role of Wednesbury unreasonableness in context to its suitability to scrutinise the government. Lord Green MR ruled that whether or not an act of a public authority is reasonable is subject to the act being “so absurd that no sensible person could ever dream that it lay within the powers of the authority”.
The first part of the test emphasises on whether the right issues were considered while it was reaching its decision. In R (DSD and NBV) v The Parole Board, the decision of the Parole Board to release the black cab rapist John Worboys was held to be ultra vires and to be irrational or unreasonable. The ultra vires doctrine allows the court to enforce the limits a legislation imposes upon a public office. However, it may create a gap where a public office can draft a provision widely to perform activities that may be incidental to the express powers in the legislation. The wide drafting by the public office means that the literal language has given rise to absurdity or injustice. In this case, the court can always apply the Golden rule to interpret a law to avoid absurdity or injustice.
The second part emphasises on whether the outcome, despite considering the right issues, is ‘so outrageous that no reasonable decision maker could have reached it’. However, it may allow a variable flexibility to the courts to developing new doctrinal approaches, such as anxious scrutiny and modified rationality. For example, Lord Donaldson in R v Devon Council ex parte (1989), equated the Wednesbury unreasonableness test with that of irrationality. Concepts including ‘arbitrary and capricious’; ‘frivolous or vexatious’; or ‘capricious and vexatious’ have been used on similar lines. Lord Brightman used the terms ‘acting perversely’. It seems the term ‘unreasonableness’ has been used as the umbrella concept.
The use of the multiple terms may allow a broad range of interpretation, and particularly require the test of reasonableness to be of a high standard. It is argued that if the standard is too low, the administrative discretion would substitute the judicial discretion. However, Lord Cooke of Thorndon sets a different tone regarding Wednesbury principle in R (Daly) Vs. Secretary of State for the Home Department. He stated that the Wednesbury principle is an ‘unfortunately retrogressive decision in English administrative law’ in that it provides for degrees of unreasonableness and ‘only a very extreme degree can bring an administrative decision within the legitimate scope of judicial invalidation’. Lord Cooke ruled that the degrees of unreasonableness may mean that the extent of judicial review and the deference will also vary with the subject matter. This means that finding a decision as not capricious or absurd is not sufficient.
There are arguments favouring the use of the principle of proportionality, which allows the scrutiny of the administrative action by limiting the exercise of power to means that are proportionate to the objective to be pursued. This has expanded the scope of judicial review based on the Wednesbury principle. The principle of proportionality has been used in multiple cases. In R v Chief Constable of Sussex, Lord Cooke ruled the proportionality principle and the margin of appreciation produce the same result as the Wednesbury principle. However, he redefined Wednesbury test of reasonableness to a simpler formula of whether a concerned decision is one which a reasonable authority would make.
It is argued that the courts have not adopted a systematic and impartial approach while using the Wednesbury principle like the proportionality test demands. It is also argued that proportionality is not replacing Wednesbury but adapting and becoming more than Wednesbury Alternative, it is also argued that the test of reasonableness comprises balancing and weighing; that proportionality does not add much to the existing grounds of judicial review; and that it does not necessarily focus on the administrative weighing and balancing process. Hence, there is no reason to prevent adding proportionality as a general ground of judicial review in UK public law. Further, the Human Rights Act 1998 (Section 3 and Section 4) provides for judicial review of compatibility of legislation to ECHR, which supports the argument for replacing the Wednesbury. The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 imposed this test. The case of Naharajah and Abdi sought proportionality.
To conclude, the first part of Wednesbury could be replaced with the ultra vires doctrine. The second part is replaceable with the principle of proportionality weighing the arguments and the statutory and judicial recognition of the proportionality principles. Hence, Wednesbury unreasonableness should be replaced.
Continue your exploration of How best can we tackle the issue of homelessness with our related content.
It is observed that students take pressure to complete their assignments, so in that case, they seek help from Assignment Help, who provides the best and highest-quality Dissertation Help along with the Thesis Help. All the Assignment Help Samples available are accessible to the students quickly and at a minimal cost. You can place your order and experience amazing services.
DISCLAIMER : The assignment help samples available on website are for review and are representative of the exceptional work provided by our assignment writers. These samples are intended to highlight and demonstrate the high level of proficiency and expertise exhibited by our assignment writers in crafting quality assignments. Feel free to use our assignment samples as a guiding resource to enhance your learning.