Administrativ JUDICIAL REVIEW – ERRORS OF LAW, ERRORS Hilary

e Law - Week OF FACT 2002

2
   
Introduction This week we are looking at the role of courts in reviewing how
inferior bodies have interpreted the law and decided the facts. Two
questions that arise are: Which bodies should be subject to this
review? What should be the nature of this review? This area of the
law is often referred to as “Jurisdiction” – the label is one that made
most sense at a previous stage in legal development, the idea being
that the review court was keeping the bodies ‘in their lawful spheres’.
     
The Texts P.P. Craig, Administrative Law (4th ed.), Chs. 15, 20 & 24

P. Cane, Ch. 6.

De Smith, Woolf & Jowell, Judicial Review of Administrative

Action, (5th ed., 1995), Ch. 5
     
Errors of Law *Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147,
HL
(‘Jurisdiction’)
South East Asia Fire Bricks v NMMPMEU [1981] AC 363, PC

Re Racal Communications [1981] AC 374, HL

*Page v Hull University Visitor [1993] AC 682, [1993] 1 All ER 97,

HL

*R v Monopolies & Mergers Commission, ex p. South Yorks

Transport [1993] 1 All ER 289, HL

Williams v Bedwellty Justices [1996] 3 All ER 737, HL, at 742b-

744g

Law or fact? R v S of St for the Home Dept, ex p. Adan [1999] 3

WLR 1274, headnote, and *1292-1296, esp. 1293D-G
     
Classic (and D. Gordon (1929) 45 LQR 458; B. Gould [1970] Public Law 358
more recent)
Articles on *J. Beatson, “The Scope of Judicial Review for Error of Law” (1984)
Jurisdiction 4 OxJLS 22

J. Laws, “Illegality: The Problem of Jurisdiction”, Ch. 4 in

Supperstone & Goudie (eds.), Judicial Review (2nd ed.)
 *Craig, “Jurisdiction, Judicial Control & Agency Autonomy”, Ch. 7
in Loveland (ed), A Special Relationship? (OUP)

I. Hare, “Sep. of Powers & JR for Error of Law” in Forsyth & Hare,
The Golden Metwand & the Crooked Cord (OUP)

*T. Endicott, “Questions of Law” (1998) 114 LQR 292

     
The *C. Forsyth, “The Metaphysic of Nullity”, in Forsyth & Hare, The
Consequence Golden Metwand & the Crooked Cord (OUP)
of an Error of
Law - Void, Boddington v British Transport Police [1999] 2 AC 143, HL
Null,
Voidable, Secretary of State for Defence v Percy [1999] 1 All ER 732, at 739-
Invalid? 744c.

R v Governor of Brockhill Prison, ex p. Evans (No. 2) [2000] 3 WLR

843

 
   
Ouster Harlow & Rawlings, Law and Administration (2nd ed. 1997), pp. 52-
60

Supreme Court Act 1981, s. 29(3), on which see Rose LJ at [2000] 1

WLR 766C-F
   
Review of *R v Nat Bell Liquors [1922] 2 A.C. 128, at 151-154 (N.B. Craig
Findings of (4th), pp. 489-491)
Fact (NB
Craig, pp 488- R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p. Khawaja
496) [1984] AC 74, HL

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p. Bugdaycay

[1987] AC 514, HL

*Tan Te Lam v Superintendent of Tai A Chau Detention Centre

[1996] 4 All ER 256, 266g-268g, PC

*R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p. Turgut [2001]

1 All ER 719, headnote and p. *729

*Alconbury [2001] 2 All ER 929, HL, paras. 53-4 (Slynn), 61-2

(Nolan), 107-117 (Hoffmann), 169 (Clyde)
 *T. Jones [1990] Public Law 507
     
Strategic Students often treat this week’s work as about what happens if a
Guidance decision-maker makes a mistake of law (or a mistake of fact). But ...
isn’t there a prior question: Who has the right to determine whether
something is a mistake of law (or fact)? (i.e. Who gets to decide what
is a mistake and what is right?) How? … Why?

The articles are important in understanding what all the fuss is about.
BUT some of the classic (and recent) articles have been overtaken by
the caselaw, to some extent. Writing the essay – aim for analysis not
narrative. You shouldn’t need more than 5-6 sides. No textbook
summaries! One side of the paper only, please.
     
Essay Title: “English law has reached a stage where there is extensive review for
errors of law and very limited review for errors of fact. This stage will
prove to be merely a ‘passing phase’. The rules are not sustainable.”
Discuss.
   
Reading List Week 3 Back to Admin. Law Reading List Index