Understanding Unreasonableness and Proportionality in Judicial Review

Question from RINT, Understanding Unreasonableness and Proportionality in Judicial Review

Answer from AI:

Judicial review is a process by which courts oversee the decisions of public bodies to ensure they are lawful. This includes examining whether a decision is unreasonable or disproportionate. These concepts have evolved over time, influenced by landmark cases and legislative changes such as the Human Rights Act 1998.

What is Unreasonableness in Judicial Review?

The concept of unreasonableness in judicial review was famously outlined in the case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948]. Here, the court considered the decision by Wednesbury Corporation to restrict the Sunday screening of films to children under 15. The court established the “Wednesbury unreasonableness” test, which asks whether a decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it. The evidentiary threshold for establishing unreasonableness is high, requiring clear proof that the decision falls outside the range of responses a reasonable authority might have.

Evolving Standards of Unreasonableness and Irrationality

Recent case law has seen a relaxation in the evidentiary requirements for proving unreasonableness and irrationality. Courts have increasingly adopted a more flexible approach, considering the context and impact of decisions more closely. This shift acknowledges the complexity of modern governance and the need for judicial oversight to adapt to changing societal standards.

Proportionality Explained

Proportionality is a principle that requires any action taken by a public body to be appropriate and not excessive in relation to the aim pursued. This concept gained prominence in UK law following the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law. Proportionality requires a balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of the community.

Key Cases and Principles

• Council of Civil Service Unions and Others v Minister for the Civil Service [1985]: Known as the GCHQ case, it established that national security concerns could justify restrictions on civil service unions, highlighting the balance between individual rights and national interests.
• Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No.2) [2013]: This case involved sanctions imposed on an Iranian bank. The Supreme Court applied a proportionality test, considering whether the measures were suitable and necessary, demonstrating the application of proportionality in economic and national security contexts.
• R v Ministry of Defence, Ex p Smith [1996]: This case challenged the MoD’s policy of discharging homosexual personnel. The court examined whether the policy was irrational or disproportionate, reflecting on how societal values influence the assessment of public decisions.
• R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001]: This case reinforced the importance of proportionality in cases involving human rights, specifically the right to privacy and family life, underlining the need for a fair balance between individual rights and public interests.

Insights from Legal Scholarship

Philip Sales’ article, “Rationality, proportionality and the development of the law” in the Law Quarterly Review, discusses the evolution of these legal principles. Sales argues that the development of proportionality and rationality in UK law reflects a broader trend towards a more nuanced and balanced approach to judicial review. This scholarship provides valuable insights into how legal principles adapt over time, influenced by societal changes and legal reasoning.

Conclusion

The principles of unreasonableness and proportionality play crucial roles in the judicial review process, ensuring that public bodies make decisions that are lawful, fair, and respect individual rights. The evolution of these concepts reflects the dynamic nature of law and its ability to respond to changing societal values and norms. Individuals facing decisions that may be unreasonable or disproportionate are advised to consult with a legal professional for personalized advice, as the application of these principles can vary significantly depending on the specifics of each case.

For further reading on the principles discussed, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Bank Mellat case provide foundational texts and examples of these legal concepts in action.