FLK1 · SQE1 module
Constitutional and Administrative Law
This subject covers the architecture of the state: parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the grounds on which the courts will review executive decisions.
The examiners favour scenario questions that test whether a public body has acted lawfully, applying the three classic grounds of judicial review to a short fact pattern.
What this module covers
- Parliamentary sovereignty and its limits
- The rule of law and the separation of powers
- Grounds for judicial review: illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety
- The royal prerogative and its reviewability
A real question from this module
Try it before you decide
FLK1 · Constitutional and Administrative Law
Question
A licensing authority refuses a taxi licence under a policy that automatically refuses any applicant with any past conviction, regardless of its nature or age, without considering the applicant’s individual circumstances. Which ground of judicial review does this raise?
- AIllegality, because a rigid policy applied without exception unlawfully fetters the authority’s discretion
- BIrrationality, because no reasonable authority could ever adopt a policy of this general kind
- CProcedural impropriety, because the applicant was not given a chance to make oral representations
- DProportionality, because the policy goes further than is necessary to protect public safety
- ELegitimate expectation, because the applicant expected the authority to consider each case individually
Show the answer and why
Answer A
A public body may adopt a general policy for consistency, but unlawfully fetters its discretion, a form of illegality, if it applies that policy as a rigid rule and refuses to consider whether a case should be treated as an exception. Irrationality concerns a decision so unreasonable that no sensible authority could reach it on its merits, not the mere existence of a policy. Procedural impropriety concerns fairness of process, not the substance of the policy, and proportionality is not treated as a free-standing ground in an ordinary domestic judicial review claim of this kind.
British Oxygen Co Ltd v Minister of Technology [1971] AC 610 (unlawful fettering of discretion).