Essay plans for the following topics:
Constitutional Law - The Rule of Law / Separation of Powers.
Administrative Law - 1) Procedural Controls on Access to Judicial Review (O'Reilly v Mackman, Order 53, Locus Standi). 2) Scope of Judicial Review (Ultra Vires, Reviewability)
Human Rights - Interpre...
1. What is Rule of Law:
a. Lovelad, Dicey, Goodhart
2. Red light/Green light
a. Red Light: Hayek, Atkin (Anisminic, Entick)
b. Green Light: Griffiths, Jones, Goodhart, Holdsworth, Heuston, Simpson
(Liversidge)
3. Liversidge- red/green light exemplified
a. Statutory interpretation (Allen)
i. Literal (R v City of London Court Judge),
ii. Golden (Grey v Pearson)
iii. Mischief (Heydon’s Case)
4. Post-Liversidge
a. Ouster Clauses? Anisminic
b. Griffiths: Judicial disregard for parliamentary sovereignty
5. Conclusion
a. Amber Light Theory: Harlow and Rawlings
b. Recently also put into question by the Evan’s case
1. Introduction- What is the Rule of Law?
- Loveland: Rule of law is concerned with what government can do—and how government
can do it.
- A. V. Dicey (supported by Allen)
- Rule of Law: No man is punishable except for a distinct breach of law before
ordinary couts
- Goodhart: Habeas Corpus
- Separation of powers:
- Organs’ powers would otherwise go unchecked
- Individuals unaware what limits to govt. Power
- Appropriate remedies
2. Red Light vs Green Light
Red Light: Limits to non-statutory power, executive under scrutiny
Lord Atkin’s dissenting judgement in Liversidge v Anderson in favor of red light approach
Green Light: “Welfare state”, executive has subjective discretionary power
Did majority judgement in Liversidge v Anderson undermine the separation of powers/
transgress Dicey’s orthodox principles of the rule of law?
- Hayek: Supporting the Diceyan Rule of Law
, a. Society’s interests= minimizing government power
b. Little governmental discretion
c. Courts should adopt a ‘red light’ approach towards the executive’s actions
- Exemplified in Entick v Carrington 1765:
- Camden CJ: Clear legal basis that justifies executive action
- ‘if it is law, it will be found it our books. If it is not to be found there, it is not law”
- Summary of Facts: Home Secretary empowered civil servants to raid private
premises without permission and seize everything there
- Entick ‘suffered in Goods’.
- He did not commit ‘a distinct breach of law’
- No basis of power
- Home Secretary: (1) public security threat (2) customs and tradition.
- Lord Camden: NO. If it is law it will be found.
Different Approach
Jones: the Welfare State
- Government should play an extensive role in the state’s economic and social affairs.
- Executory must be given a significant amount of discretionary powers
a. it is not feasible to operate a welfare estate with detailed legislative rules.
Impossible to predict every possible situation
- Green light approach when policing executive actions.
3. Liversidge v Anderson- Red Light/Green Light exemplified
Liverside v Anderson
Secretary of State had right to detain based on “reasonable cause of believe” (digressed from
its earlier formulation, sole requirement of being “satisfied” of its urgency)
- Majority decided reasonable cause completely laid in discretion of secretary of state
What is reasonable cause of belief? Statutory interpretation
Allen: Despite The Interpretation Act Acts, wide discretionary interpretational margin
- Literal: Atkin in Liversidge (also Esher in R v City of London Court Judge)
- limit the discretion of the courts by granting full legislative power to and upholding
sovereignty of parliament
- Golden: Lord Wnsleydale in Grey v Pearson
- consistency and sense “but no farther”, upholding parl. sovereignty
- Mischief: Heydon’s Case
- Interpretation remedies the issue (purpose) that parliament was trying to control
(Magor and Denning in St. Mellons R.D.C. v Newport Corporation: “filling in the
gaps [...] by opening it up to destructive analysis”)
, All purport to reaffirm the sovereignty of parliament, whether it be through a close analysis of the
words or the intention. But where does one draw the line between filling in the gaps and
interrupting the separation of powers?
Applying to the case
- Majority judgement by Viscount Maugham, reasonable cause: “left to his sole discretion
without appeal to a court” (1942: 220-221)
- Used mischief rule set out in the Heydon’s Case - the misc
- hief being fear of spies as a public policy concern (Bingham)
- Jones - Political justification - rule of law can be suspended during war to preserve
country’s existence as an independent state.
- Goodhart
- subjective judgement of ministers [expert], state depends on this
- Executive acted within its power
- Holdsworth
- Amendment (adding ‘reasonable’) does not grant the court power to
review that criteria
- Home Secretary is bound by these rules (good faith)
- Extensive reviewability by courts has hindered rational development of
administrative law
- Heuston and Simpson supports this judgement
This submission, however, ostensibly contradicts the Diceyan rule of law:
- Dissenting judgement by Lord Atkin:
- Literal approach: must give words natural meaning, even in war times
- Reasonable cause= objective fact to be proved and determined in the courts
- Reiterates importance of separation of powers, executive should not establish,
but execute rule of law, even in a time of war.
- Kemp Allen
- difference between “stretching and bursting”,
- Majority did not stretch but completely overstepped its boundaries
- Rights of individuals more crucial than war-time policies ending in
arbitrary imprisonment (contrast: Jones)
4. Post-Liversidge: Parliamentary sovereignty or rule of law?
Grifiths
- Judicial disregard for parliamentary sovereignty signifies green light
Ouster Clauses
- Parliament attempted to restricts traditional rule of law by ousting court jurisdiction
BUT
- Anisminic: Court overruled ouster clauses-- reaffirming red light
5. Conclusion
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller ibrahimokasha. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $23.87. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
