100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Previously searched by you
Previously searched by you
logo
Administrative Law - Deference Summary $10.65   Add to cart
Quickly navigate to
Preview
  2.  
  3. Oxford University (OX)
  4.  
  5. Administrative Law

Summary

Administrative Law - Deference Summary
 7 views  0 purchase
  • Course
  • Administrative Law
  • Institution
  • Oxford University (OX)

Comprehensive summary/exam notes on the topic of judicial deference in Administrative Law. This document covers the two types of deference (spatial deference and due deference), an analysis of which model of deference is to be preferred, and an analysis of whether deference is a good thing.

Preview 1 out of 4  pages

Document information

  • October 6, 2024
  • 4
  • 2022/2023
  • Summary

Subjects

  • administrative law
  • deference
  • spatial deference
  • due deference
  • carlile
  • weighted deference
  • belmarsh
  • miss behavin
  • judicial deference

Written for

  • Oxford University (OX)
  • Unknown
  • Administrative Law
All documents for this subject (10)

Seller

avatar-seller
bethjscott5713

Content preview

Deference
The principle of judicial deference refers to the extent to which the judiciary ought to defer to
decisions made by a public authority.

Two types of deference:
Spatial Deference:
There is a “space” or category of decisions that are off the table automatically.
The main one is national security (Carlile).
Due Deference:
Also known as “weighted deference”.
Recognises that different rights have different weights and that while the decision is
for the court, it will give weight to the public body if the case requires it.

Difference in these two approaches can be seen by the approaches of two different judges, Lord
Sumption and Lady Hale, in Carlile.
Lord Sumption considered that the court’s role should be heavily circumscribed.
In deciding whether infringement was proportionate, it was right to give wide margin
of judgement to Foreign Secretary.
This was because the judgement really involved making a predictive
judgement about the likelihood that Iran would perceive this allowing of
entry as a hostile act – predictive and inherently imprecise.
Foreign Secretary deemed to have better expertise of relationship.
Where the decision was based on factors where the court did not
have the evidence, experience, and institutional legitimacy to form its
own view with confidence, its interference could only be justified in
exceptional circumstances.
This approach represents a radical form of deference which involves substituting
reasonableness review for proportionality review on the basis that the latter is
considered too intrusive in the circumstances.
As Elliott and Veruhas put it – “Deference is achieved by replacing a more
demanding question (“Is the measure proportionate?”) with a less demanding
one (“Is the measure rational?”)”.
Lady Hale’s approach represents an alternative, arguably more nuanced, approach to
deference.
By this approach, the court would continue to work through the four stages/questions
required by proportionality review but would ascribe an appropriate degree of weight
to the decision-makers views if the case required it.
On this basis, Lady Hale did not agree with Lord Sumption that the court
should merely ask whether the measure in question was rational.
This idea was summarised perfectly by Lady Hale when she said: “I have no doubt
that it is for the court to make the proportionality assessment; but I have equally no
doubt that on some parts of that assessment the court should be very slow indeed to
disagree with the assessment made by the Government.”

Which model of deference is to be preferred?
Hunt – the fundamental problem with spatial deference is that it assumes that cases can be “neatly
classified into categories according to the kind of subject matter they raise, and then a particular
standard of review applied to them.”
Take national security cases for instance, just because the case concerns one of national
security, does not mean that there isn’t the possibility of a misjudgement; it would be
dangerous to sweep judicial review completely off the table.

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

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

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

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 bethjscott5713. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for $10.65. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

60904 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now

Start selling
$10.65
  • (0)
  Add to cart