Control of discretion (Wednesbury Test) Custom Essay

[meteor_slideshow slideshow=”arp1″]

1) It is evident that the wednesbury test is in fact a range of different tests.what are these tests and how do they apply?When you consider this question,you should also think about the effectiveness of all these tests as mechanisms of accountability.NOTE:cases under improper purposes:Padfield v Minister of Agriculture,Fishereies and Food(1968)Ac 997.Congreve v Home Office(1976)QB 629.Wheeler v Leicester City Council(1985)2 ALL ER 1106,R V Secretary of State p.World Development Movement(1995)1 WLR 386.IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS-policies and discretion:Roberts v Hopwood(1925)AC 579,R v Secretary of State for the Home Department,ex parte Venables(1998)Ac 407,Bromley London Borough Council v Greater London Council(1983)1 Ac 768.Failure to Take Account of a Relevant Consideration:R v HUMAN fertilization and Embryology Authority,ex parte Blood.(1997)2 AlL ER 687.(note:wednesbury should be first of all described historically then the two types which are umbrella and substantive test and their subdivisions and those are the cases to be described above.2)Consider the pure wednesbury test of unreasonableness.What are the major characteristics of the test,and in what ways has it changed?cases under here:Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation(1948)1KB 223,R V Secretary of State for the Home Department,ex parte Simms(1999)3 ALL ER 400,R(0n the Application of the Association of British Civilian Internees-Far Eastern Region)vSecretary of State for Defence(2003)EWCA Civ 473,(2003)QB 1397.A lighT TOUCH ON THE CASE OF:Nottinghamshire CC v SECRETARY OF State for the Environment(1986)1 ALL ER 199.3)What is proportionality and in what circumstances might it be used as a method of review in courts in england and wales?cases under here to be used:de Freitas v Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture,Fishereies,Lands and Housing(1999)1 AC 69 80(Lord Clyde).R V Secretary of State for the Home Department,ex parte Simms(1999)UKHL 33.R V Secretary of State for the Home Department,ex parte Daly(2001)UKHL 26,(2001)2 AC 532 esp at 547-548(Lord Steyn)R V Secretary of State for Health,ex parte Eastside Cheese Company(1999)3 CMLR 123,ONLY AT 48-50 FOR MY PURPOSE,Human Rights Act 1998,s.2,also you define the concept of proportionality and the 3tests its broken down in.4)It is Clear from the above that proportionality must be used in cases involving human rights under the Human Rights Act 1998.What approach should the court adopt to judicial review in such cases?Do our courts always follow the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and are they obliged to do so?cases here:R(On the Application of Begum)v.Head Teacher and Governors of Denbigh High School(2006)UKHL 15,(2006)2 ALL ER 467,Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department(2007)UKHL 11,(2007)2 AC 167..R.(on the application of Animal Defenders Interntional)v.Secretary of State for Culture,Media and Sport(2008)UKHL 15,(2008)1 AC 1312,R V Horncastle(2009)UKSC 14,(2010)2 WLR 47.This is a very long case-the dicta of lord Phillips at (11)and Lord Brown at (117)-(118)give a clear indication of the approach of the court in the judgement.5)What constitutional concerns might arise if the judiciary begin to take a more invasive approach to judicial review?Are these concerns really justified?

[meteor_slideshow slideshow=”arp2″] is committed to deliver a custom paper/essay which is 100% original and deliver it within the deadline. Place your custom order with us and experience the different; You are guaranteed; value for your money and a premium paper which meets your expectations, 24/7 customer support and communication with your writer. Order Now

Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.