Understanding Judicial Review: Unreasonableness and Proportionality

Question from TINJ, Understanding Judicial Review: Unreasonableness and Proportionality

Answer from AI:

Judicial review is a process by which courts review the lawfulness of decisions or actions taken by public bodies. Two key grounds for judicial review are unreasonableness and irrationality, which, although closely related, have distinct legal meanings and applications. Additionally, the principle of proportionality has emerged as an important ground for review, especially in cases involving human rights. This article explores these concepts, their differences, and their application in landmark cases.

Unreasonableness and Irrationality in Judicial Review

Unreasonableness and irrationality are often used interchangeably in common parlance, but in legal terms, they have specific meanings:

• Unreasonableness refers to a decision that is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it. This standard was established in the landmark case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948], commonly known as the “Wednesbury unreasonableness” test.
• Irrationality, while similar to unreasonableness, is often used to describe decisions that lack a logical or sensible foundation, essentially being beyond the realm of reason.

The difference between the two is subtle and often debated, but generally, irrationality is seen as a broader concept that encompasses unreasonableness.

Proportionality vs. Unreasonableness

The level of review under proportionality and unreasonableness differs significantly:

• Proportionality requires that a decision or action is suitable to achieve its aim, necessary, and balanced against the rights or interests affected. This test is stricter and often applied in cases involving fundamental rights, following the Human Rights Act 1998.
• Unreasonableness, as per the Wednesbury standard, is less stringent, focusing on whether a decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would have made it.

The Test for Proportionality

The test for proportionality involves several steps:

1. Assessing whether the objective of the measure is sufficiently important to justify limiting a fundamental right.
2. Examining whether the measure is rationally connected to the objective.
3. Considering whether a less intrusive measure could have been used.
4. Evaluating whether, balancing the severity of the measure’s effects on the rights of the persons to whom it applies against the importance of the objective, the overall impact of the measure is disproportionate.

Key Cases in Judicial Review

Several landmark cases illustrate the application of unreasonableness, irrationality, and proportionality in judicial review:

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948]

This case established the “Wednesbury unreasonableness” test, setting a high threshold for unreasonableness in judicial review. The court held that a decision would only be unreasonable if it was so absurd that no sensible person could ever dream that it lay within the powers of the authority.

Council of Civil Service Unions and Others v Minister for the Civil Service [1985]

Known as the “GCHQ case,” this decision highlighted the importance of national security considerations and the discretion of public authorities, while also acknowledging the potential for judicial review on grounds of unreasonableness.

Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No.2) [2013]

This case is a key example of the proportionality test in action, where the Supreme Court found that the Treasury’s order restricting a bank’s access to the UK’s financial market was disproportionate and infringed the bank’s rights.

R v Ministry of Defence, Ex p Smith [1996]

This case involved a challenge to the Ministry of Defence’s policy of discharging personnel found to be homosexual. The court applied the proportionality test, considering the policy’s impact on the individuals’ rights.

R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001]

This case further developed the proportionality test in the context of prisoners’ rights, emphasizing the need for a fair balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of the community.

Recent Developments and Article Reference

Recent case law and academic commentary, such as Sales, P. ‘Rationality, proportionality and the development of the law’ [2013] LQR 223, have discussed the evolving standards of unreasonableness and irrationality, and the increasing importance of the proportionality test, especially in light of the Human Rights Act 1998. These developments suggest a trend towards a more nuanced and rights-focused approach in judicial review.

For individuals facing legal issues related to judicial review, it is crucial to consult with a legal professional who can provide personalized advice and guidance based on the latest laws and case law.