Rahat Sir Last 2.docx

Task 1 (i) A constitution is the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in it. Legal sources It include with Statutes(Act of Parliament),the power of the crown(The Royal Pererogative),judicial review,The law and custom of parliament. Act of Parliament:-Act of Parliament is the height form oh United Kingdom1. Magna carta 1215-protect citizens against arbitrary power and guaranteed the right to fair trial by jury2. The petition of right 1628- It prohibited the raising tax without parliament consent. The Bill of Rights 1689-It prohibited the crown raising taxes without parliament consents and keeping army in peace time without parliament consent’s. The Act of Settlement 1700 The Act of Settlement 1700- Crown was limited to adherents of the protestant faith and execluded Roman catholic or those married to roman catholic. The Acts of Union 1706 and 1707-England and Scoltland under a single parliament. The parliament Acts 1911 and 1949- It formalized the supremacy of the elected House of Commons(HC) over the unelected House of Lords(HL). The European Communities Act 1972- It’s the enforcement of community law in the united kingdom(UK). The northern act 1998,Scotland act 1998 and government of wales act 1998- It developed national assemblies. The Human Right Act 1998- It guaranteed rights and Freedom of a citizen under European convention on Human Rights into domestic law. The constitutional reform and governance act 2010-parliamentary control over the ratification. The European union act 2011-it increased democratic and parliamentary control over the transfer of further powers from the Uk to the European Union.

1 2

Barnett H,constitutional and administrative law(9th edition)27-33 magna Carta,statute 25 Edw I (1297)

Common Law:-It included with the cases of Royal prerogative,cases of civil liberties,decisions made by Human rights Act 1998 and cases of Judicial review. The law and custom of parliament:-parliamentary privilege is a unique form of common law and enforced by parliament. If any parliamentary privilege issue raised before court of law,than it determined parliamentary issue and jury gave judgement. The Royal Prerogtive- It covers a range of disparate matter relating to domestic and foreign affairs. prime ministers and other ministers got appoint under royal prerogative. Decleration of war and peace fall under the prerogative powers. Treatis also signed under royal prerogative. European source:- separate and distinct forms of law with differing origins and aims and having separate institutions and personnel. European convention of Human Rights ensure the protection of a citizen and civil liberties. Domestic courts take into consideration the case law and opinion of the court of Human Rights in giving Judgement.

Non-legal sources for the United Kingdom constitution,it is important to understanding their nature,scope and manner of application3. Constitutional convention have some rules for the constitution and its are ‘the queen has the legal right to refuse to give royal assent to bills passed by HC and HL convention. -the Prime minister must be the member of HC -judge must be a neutral nad no part of a political body. -members of parliament shall not criticise the judiciary4. AV Dicey difined ‘’conventions,habits or practice which,though they may regulate the conduct of the several members of the soverign power which are not in reality laws at all since they are not enforced by the courts. The word ‘understanding’ connotes a mutual agreement between relevant actors as to the pertinent subject matter.a lack of a understanding of the situation means fail to be ‘of one mind’.an ‘understanding‘ may well be relied on by the parties,as are conventions.The explanation for this lies in the fact that an understanding-as opposed to a convention-does not amount to a rule,and accordingly is not obligation-imposing to the same degree as a conention. 3 4

Inter alia,Dicey,1885,chapter 14,Jennings 1959. Burnett H,page 35

A constitutional convention is a non-legal rule which imposes an obligation on those bound by the convention,breach or violation of which will give rise to legitimate criticism;and that criticism will generally take the form of an accusation of ‘unconstitutional conduct’ Two basic points must be recognized. The first point is that a breach of law normally,but not invariably,leads to enforcement of the rule by the courts. The second point is that when a rule of lawis breached,the rule remains valid and in force,unless repealed by parliament or overruled by the judges.being non-legal rules5. The doctrine of collective ministerial responsibility provides an example of the uncertainities entailed in the scope and binding nature of conventional rules. the convention of collective ministerial responsibility has two main elements. The first is what when a decision has been reached in cabinet that decision is binding on all government ministers who must irrespective of their personal feelings about the matter. And second is that cabinet discussion are absolutely confidential and may never be disclosed without prime ministerial authority. In 1932,a colition government was in office. In 1975,the Labour Government was divided as to the benefits of continued membership of the Europen Community. Individual ministerial responsibility requires that minister of the crown are accountable to parliament,and though parliament to the electorate,for their personal conduct and for the conduct of their departments.the doctrine is expressed in practical terms at parliamentary question time,in debates,and in committee proceedings,whereby parliament ensures that ministers explain and,if necessary,defend their actions.if a minister personal onduct falls below the high standard required of public figures,he or she should resign.if the matter is of sufficient gravity and the minister loses the support of his party and Prime Minister,he os she may be forced to resign. The court do not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon conventions.this is not to say that a court must take no cognizance of conventional rules. Dicey asserted,conventions are not ‘court enforceable’.the court will give recognition to convention,although they are rarely called upon to do so.two cases are illustrative.The first is that of ‘Attorney General v Jonathan Cape Ltd’6.In 1976,the executos of the late Richard Crossman,a former cabinet minister,decided to proceed with publication of the diaries he had kept while in government. The court ruled,however that as a matter of constitutional convention,consent was required. The court emphasized the importance of conventions,starting the ‘some conventions may be

5

Manuel v Attorney General1983 ch 77 ALL ER 822

6

Attorney General v Jonathan Cape Ltd’ 1946

more important than some laws and that constitutional conventions plus constitutional law equal the total constitution of the country7. Blackstone,Dicey,Jennings and later commentators to whose works the actors on the constitutional stage,including the judge,may make reference for elucidation of matter of constitutional law. Source are the constitutional principles of democracy and responsible government,the separation of powers and the rule of law and the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty or supremacy.

7

Burnett H,constitutional and administrative law,page-41

Question no ii. British constitution is unwritten constitution. The UK's constitution is not written in a single document, but derives from a number of sources that are part written and part unwritten, including accumulated conventions, works of authority, Acts of Parliament, the common law, and EU law. The advantage of unwritten constitution is -it make a balance with changing evolution -freedom and right is ensured by this constitution. -if parliament want ,than they can change it. adaptable or flexible. it can be changed easily to deal with new situations. -democratic consensus may be more easily modified than as a written constitution. -Parliament and the Judiciary act as elected guardians8. adaptable or flexible. it can be changed easily to deal with new situations. -democratic consensus may be more easily modified than as a written constitution. -Parliament and the Judiciary act as elected guardians9.

The disadvantage of unwritten constitution is - It certin main power from a state and give the power to main estate10. -Constitutional source don’t get any single basement. -the extend to which the judges are prepared to accept and apply.

8

http://www.markedbyteachers.com/as-and-a-level/politics/what-are-the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-anunwritten-constitution.html access date(ac)-15.82014 9 http://www.studymode.com/essays/Advantages-And-Disadvantages-Of-Written-And-1551137.html access date 15.8.2014 10 https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071107123209AABASqS access date-15.82014

Question (iii) Parliamentary sovereignty is a concept in the constitutional law of some parliamentary democracies. It holds that the legislative body has absolute sovereignty and is supreme over all other government institutions, including executive or judicial bodies. The concept also holds that the legislative body may change or repeal any previous legislation,and so that it is not bound by written law or by precedent. Parliamentary sovereignty may be contrasted with the doctrines of separation of powers which limits the legislature's scope often to general lawmaking, and judicial Review(JR) where laws passed by the legislature may be declared invalid in certain circumstances.

A.v.Dicey explained three principles of Sovereignty of Parliament11. These are 1.parliament’s is the supreme law –making body –may legislate on any subject matter. 2. No parliament can be restricted parliament

by a predecessor or restrict the power of a future

3.No body,including a court of law,may question the validity of acts parliament.

1.parliament’s is the supreme law –making body –may legislate on any subject matter:parliament can do anything what they want. parliament can also remove independence. Its powers are theoretically absoluate.Parliament also legislate with retrospective effect as following War Damage Act 1965 (Burmah oil company v Lord Advocate)12. parliament can also legislate overseas territory,as in the Continental Shelf Act 1964.following Stockdale v Hansard case,proclamations of the crown,issued under the royal prerogative,do not have the force of law. 2. no parliament can be restricted by a predecessor or restrict the power of a future parliament:-parliament can enjoy unlimited power as any parliament before. Maugham LJ said ‘’it is impossible for parliament to enact that in a subsedequent statute dealing with the same subject matter there can be no implied repeal( Nairn v University of St Andrews)13

11

Burnett H,page-117. Burmah oil company v Lord Advocate 1980 AC 1090 13 Nairn v University of St Andrews 1909 Ac 147 12

3.no body,including a court of law,may question the validity of acts parliament:- Two rules can be dominate. one is enrolled bill and recieve the Royal Assent and second is implied repeal. In (pickin v british railway board)14. It illustrated the contemporary judges. Political acceptability to the electoral represents the strongest external basis of restraitnt. All governments are accountable to the electorate,albeit in terms of a direct vote only periodically. European communities act 1972 recived community law into domestic law and accepted cases of community law must prevail over domestric law. The European court of justice insists that EU law is the supreme and member state have surrounded their sovereignty has been limited. some issue must be follow. These are EU la. -the manner in which ,and extend to which,inadvertent or deliberate parliamentary Acts are reconciled with the requirements of EU law. Membership of EU entails an irrecoverable relinquishment of parliamentary supremecy. It follow the (Costa v ENEL)15 and (Van Gend en Loos)16. Government choose to ‘incorporate’ the rights protected under the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law is based on the premise of ensuring that parliament retains its sovereignty over law making. The Human Rights Act 1998 utilises a peculiarly British device which preserv parliaments theoretical sovereignty17. The traditional theory of sovereignty,as applied to the Human Rights,disguises the importance of the constitutional change which the Act represents. The human Right Act has quickly become established at the heart of the legal system,providing a yardstick against which all actions of government and other public bodies may be judged. while the government adopted a constitutional mechanism which preserved parliaments sovereignty,and maintains the conventional role of the judiciary ,the working of the Act is more subtle than the restatement of sovereignty implies. There is a significant shift in the process of judicial reasoning while traditionally focuses on interpreting the ‘latest will of parliament as expressed in legislation.The requirement that ministers must state that legislative proposals are in compliance with convention requirements,coupled with the directive to judges to interpret in line with convention rights,give rights a special constitutional and moral status.

14

pickin v british railway board 1974 AC 765 Costa v ENEL 1964 ECR 1125 16 Van Gend en Loos 1963 CMLR 105 17 Burnett H,page 139 15

United Kingdom,this ultimate source of legal authority is parliamentary sovereignty,or legislative supremecy,which rests on the political sovereignty of the people.the most significant contemporary challenge to parliament’s legal authority is membership of the European Union law.

Question no iv. The convention of ministerial responsibility is central to the constitution and plays a fundamental role in the relationship between the executive and parliament. For the doctrine of the government under the law to be observed,it is essential that government be accountable to both parliament and the electorate,and that government be conducted in a manner sufficiently open,subject to the requirement of the national interest,to inspire public confidence.The origins of ministerial responsibility are traced by FM Maitland to the principle that ‘for every exercise if royal power some minister is answerable18’.

Ministerial responsibility are two types.these are 1.collective ministerial responsibility 2.individual ministerial responsibility

1.collective ministerial responsibility:-Lord Salisbury said ‘’for all that person in cabinet every membr of it who does not resign in absolutely and irretrievably responsible and has no right afterwards to say that he agreed in one case to a compromise,while in another he was per suaded by his colleagues. It is only on that pribnciple that absoulate responsibility is undertaken by every member of the cabinet,all members of cainet-and many outside cabinet-are bound to speak in support of the decision. If government disagree with public opinion it subjectd to challenge authority to continue in office. collective ministerial responsibility means al minister is agree in collectively.there are two aspects to the conventions. First is all cabinet discussion are must remain,absoluately confidential. Another is if any decision takey by a minister or cabinet,than every minister is bound to support it. 2.individual ministerial responsibility There are two aspects of this responsibility19.one is minister is expected to conduct himself in an appropriate manner. The second is a minister is accountable to parliament for the management of his government department. As following

18

Burnett H,page-221-223

Chirchel Down20 it actually emphasises the unanimity of government and its accountability.if there public disagree matter than it subjected to its authority to continue in office. The accountability of government to parliament and the people is essential in any democratic state.The constitutional convention of collective and individual ministerial responsibility are central to ensuring the accountability.The openness of government is also a matter of constitutional importance21.

20

pickin v british railway board 1974 AC 765 Costa v ENEL 1964 ECR 1125 20 Van Gend en Loos 1963 CMLR 105 20 Burnett H,page 139 21 Burnett H,chapter 10,page-240 20

Question no v “Separation of powers” refers to the idea that the major institutions of state should be functionally independent and that no individual should have powers that span these offices. The principal institutions are usually taken to be the executive, the legislature and the Judiciary seperation of power played important role in the formation of constitutions. It is a doctrine which is fundamental to the organization of a state and the concept of constitutionalism22. it suggest the allocation of power,limitation of power and differing institutions. It is the relationship between these bodies which must be evaluated against the backcloth of the principle.doctrine should be ,ideally,a clear demarcation of personnel and function between the legislature. Executive and judiciary in order that none should have execessive power and that there should be in place system of checks and balance between the institutions. Baron Montesquieu stressed the importance of the independence of the judiciary in De Esprit des Lois ‘when the legislative and executive powers are untited in the same person,or in the same body of magistrates,there can be no liberty. Again,there is no liberty id the power of juding is not separated from legislative and executive.id it were joined with the legislative,the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control;for the judge would then be the legislator. If it were joined to the executive power,the judge might behave with violence and oppression. There would be an end to everything,if the same man,or the same body,wheather of the nobels or the people,wer to exercise those three powers,that of enacting laws,that of executing public affairs,and that of trying crimes or individual causes.

The doctrine is mainly agreed with respect and it means absolute. it is necessary to define major institutions of the state and evaluate the relationship between them. In the politics’’ Aristotle23’’ said ‘’there are three elements in each constitution in respect of which every serious lawgiver must look for what is advantageous. constitution is bound to be well arranged 22 23

Burnett H,chapter 4,page-72 Aristotle(384-322)

and difference constitution are bound to correspond to the difference between each of these elements. It is a constitutional convention of the highest importance that the legislature and the judicature are separate and independent of oner another,subject to certain ultimate rights of parliament over the judicature Question vi the principle that all people and institutions are subject to andaccountable to law that is fairly a pplied and enforced,the principle ofgovernment by law.it is the most challenging matter of the constitutions. A.V Dicey explained three principals for rule of law24. These are 1.No punishment may be inflicted other than for a breach of law 2.Irrespective of rank and status all are equal under the law 3.Rights and freedom are the best protected under the common law rather formal bill of rights25. 1.No punishment may be inflicted other than for a breach of law:- no man is punishable or can be punishable by lawfully made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary courts of the land.system of government based on exercrise of persons in authority of wide,arbitrary or discretionary powers of constrait.any court can punish a person and any court may be released at once or imprisoned for life(SIR IVOR)Crown.HL and HC must agree wth legislation . Arbitrary law cannot be passed.Waddington v Miah26 said ‘’ ’parliament does not intend with retrospective effect’’.

2.Irrespective of rank and status all are equal under the law:-no man is above the law.equality before the law is the main subject on this issue. sir Ivor said ‘’from taxi driver to every people have special rights and duties. The police have powers over above citizens. Crown has certain immunities,diplomats have immunities.judge have immunities to done their duties. In totally it meant the law is equal for everyone and everyone is equal in the eyes of law.

24

Burnett H,chapter 3,page 61 Jennings,1959 b,p54,Heuston,The rule of Law,in 1964a,p40 26 Waddington v Miah (1974) 1 WLR 683 25

3.Rights and freedom are the best protected under the common law rather formal bill of rights:-citizen are free to do whatever the law does not prohibit.The right of liberty and assembly of legal processiding are determined by the courts.The Human right is ensured by the Convention of Human Rights AcT into Domestic law.where a relationship between an aggrieved citizen and a body there is judicial review.the right to a fair is protected under Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Right and it said if there sufficient pay fo legal assistance,there intersts of justice so require27. Malone v United Kingdom28:-Article 8 of the convention of Human Right and that English law fell short of the stanbdards of clarity and certainty necessary to protect citizens. It meant the right and freedom protect by common law. Lord Templeman said ‘there was power to enforce the law against a minister in his of her official capacity and that the home office,for which the seceratary od state was responsible ,was in contempt of court.it indicate everyone even minister also equal in the eyes of law.In additionally,judicial review is concerned with ensuring that public bodies.

The rule of law represents a challenge to state authority and power,demanding both that powers be granted legitimately and that their exercise is according to law and it means both according to the legal rules and something over and above purely formal legality and imputes the concepts of legitimacy and constitutionality. The law is not autonomous but rests on the support of those it governs.the law is the servant of the sense of rightness in the community,and whilst the rule places law above every individual. It remains,paradoxically,subject to the ultimate judgement of the people.

27 28

Burnet H,chapter 2,page 68 Malone v United Kingdom (1984)7 EHHR

Task 2 Question i Judicial review is concerned with the legality of the decision made,not with the merits of the particular decision. It mainly concerned with question of jurisdiction and natural justice29. Actually a procedure by which a court can review an administrative action by a public body and (in England)secure a declaration or award.The exercise of these powers may be challenged by judicial review. If the person or body was acting within its jurisdiction,and respecting the demand of natural justice,the court would not intrfare with the decision.judicial review(JR) only concern with public bodies decision,not to private bodies. The balance to be struck between these views is usefully understood using the traffic light analogy.There are those theorists who are generally suspicious of the executive and believe that state should be controlled and prevented from interfering with individual rights. These theorists are ‘red light’ because they wish to ensure that the courts are effectively used to control the excesses of the state30. supporters of ‘green light’ theory believe that political and democratic forms of accountability are preferale to the courts. In respons to these two schools of thought a third way has been advocated.it lies lies between the ‘red’ and ‘green’ extrems ans take the view that approachto be used will be directed by an individual case. It suggest that salutation should be found inside and outside the courts and more flexibility in approach will support a more successful outcome. The role of the JR is to exercrise a supervisory,not appellate,jurisdiction.comparison to statutory appeals have some limitation.JR is an inherent jurisdiction of the court.no one can gurabted to it by parliament. Court make a decision accordance with Human Rights Act31.And it give the remedies effected party.and JR have some important aspects. Availability of appeals depend on statutory

29

Burnett H,chapter23,page 544,554, http://direct.mises.org/journals/jls/2_1/2_1_2.pdf access date 15.8.2014 31 Human Rights Act 1998 30

provision. Interested party must seek the courts permission or leave to apply for JR. By contrast appeals examine the substantive merits of the decision under appeal.

Question (ii) O’Reilly v Mackman32 ,the applicants had taken part in prison riot at Hull gaol and the sentence as punishment. The applicants tried to establish that the Board of Visitors had acted contrary to the rules of natural justice. They attempted to do by means of an originating summons or writ. The issue was a matter of public law and that they could have employed the judicial review procedure,provided that they applied for leave within the requisitite three month. No leave from the court is needed in relation to private law proccedings. Lord Diplock stated 33‘’if what should emerge is that his complaint is not of an infringement of any of his rights that are entitled to protection in public law,but may be an infringement of his rights in private law and this is not a proper subject for judicial review,the court has power under rule,instead of refusing the application,to order the proceddings to continue as if they had begun by writ’’. Reffering to the procedural disadvantage Lord Diplock said34 ‘’those disadvantage to applicants have been removed and all remedies for infringement of rights protected by public law can be obtained upon an application for judicial review,as also can remedies for infringement of rights under private law if such infringement sould also be involved. It would in my view as a general rule be contrary to public policy,and such as abuse of the process of the court to permit a person seeking to establish that a decision of a public authority infringed right to which he was entitled to protection under law to process by way of an ordinary action and by this means evade the provisions of order 53 for the protection of such authorities’’. But another side Professor Wade declared in O’Reilly as amounting to a serious setback for administrative law and state that ‘it has caused many cases,which on their merits might have succeeded,to fail merely becaused of choice of the wrong form of action. Following Wade assessment of the House of Lords(HL) decision in OReally is that ‘the HL has expounded the law as designed for the protection of public authorities rather than of the citizen such are the misfortunate which can flow from the best intentioned reforms’.

32

OReily v Mackman (1983) 2 Ac 237 Burnett H ,chapter 23,page-557 34 Replace by the civil procedural rule 1998 33

Question no 3. Application of judicial review is 1.public bodies-have a legal duty act in accordance with convention rights and failure to do so may result in proceddings for judicial review O Reilly v Mackman35. 2.against a public body-victim must be public body,private issue will not allow for the judicial review. It have to be performance public matter.some matter got consider as public issue as following as secoundary legislation(R v City panel of Takeovers and Mergers ex Parte Datafin Ltd(1987) 3.Human rights ground must be applicable for judicial Review(JR) and it completely have to need to take place. Matter of political judgement are not for the judges to solve. Matter of Royal Pererogative still be reviewed and court can evaluate it administrative decisions.Minister coudnt rely on pererogative. R v Parliamentary Comission for Administration ex Parte Dyer(1994) 4.application must have sufficient interest issue for the judicial review have to be standing position that meant sufficient interest. Group or individual interest wont allow in court for the judicial review. The court may recognise the sufficient interest of an organisation to challenge a public decision/action that allegedly harms the public interest. R v Inland Revenue Comissioners ex parte National Federation of Self Employed and Small Business(1982) 5. Timeliness-the application for JR must be mad within three month of the challanged decision. Court can enforce it as given time limitation given by statutes. R v Secretary of State for the Envirounment ex Parte Ostier36 following Delegate law making powers to public bodies. Public body effect can be used by the immunity of judicial scrutiny. The decision of the court destroyed the distinction between errors of law within the administrative bodys jurisdiction and those that fall outside its jurisdiction. Reference case Anisminic V Foreign Compensation commission37. 35

O Reilly v Mackman (1983) 2 Ac 237 R v Secretary of State for the Envirounment ex Parte Ostier (1976) 37 Anisminic V Foreign Compensation comissionn(1968) 36

6.Exaustion of alternative Remedies-successful applicant will get a remedy by judicial review. JR may be gurantee even if the alternative remedial proceddings have not been exuasted due to exceptional delays in the relevent process38. 7.Grounds-illegality,irrationality and procedural impropriety devide the grounds. Illegality-made with doctrine of ultra virus and it covers illegality of actions or decisions taken by public bodies that had no authority to act. Local authority charge of 25 pounds was not incidental aspects(R v Ricmond upon Thames City Council ex Parte McCarthy and Stone Ltd39)

Grounds of the judicial review is Illegality Illegality as a ground for judicial review means that the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it. This would mean that when a power vested in a decision-maker is exceeded, acts done in excess of the power are invalid as being ultra vires. Ultra virus covers the illegality of actions taken by public bodies that had no statutory authority to decide.R v Richmond upon Thames city council ex parte Mccarthy and Stone Ltd40 ruled that there are to examining the quality of a decision making process rather than the merits of a decision,cannot be said to fully satisfy the ‘right to a fair traial. Government. Ministers have also sometimes acted outside their authority as following[ R v Home Secretary, ex parte Fire Brigades Union (1995)].power is derived from statute, acts outside the scope of that authority Bromley Council v Greater London Council (1983). Irrationality No sensible person who applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived as following Provincial Houses Ltd V Wednesday Corporation41. when a public body gives some reasons for its decisions than irrationality test become very strict and threshold also become high.

38 39

40

Burnett H,chapter 23,page 546 (R v Ricmond upon Thames City Council ex Parte McCarthy and Stone Ltd(1992) AC 48

R v Richmond upon Thames city council ex parte Mccarthy and Stone Ltd(1992)Ac 48.ECtHR(European Court of Human Rights) 41 Provincial Houses Ltd V Wednesday Corporation(1984)

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp42 the Court of Appeal held that a court could interfere with a decision that was ‘so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it43. When a public body reaches a decision but does not supply the reasons for this decision,the court may infer this that the decision was irrational.irrationality’s narrow concept is used interchangeably with the wider notion of ‘unreasonablness. Natural justice are common law rule.two principal are natural justice.the rule against bias(iudex in causa sua).it means no one should act as a judge in their own case.Dimes v Grand Junction Canal(1852) Another principle is the right to a fair hearing(audi alterm partem).it means listen the other points of view.As following Cooper v WAndsworth Board of Works(1983)

Procedural impropriety It means failure to act with procedural fairness (procedural ultra vires) or Procedural impropriety as a ground for judicial review covers the failure by the decision-maker to observe procedural rules that are expressly laid down in the legislation44 by which its jurisdiction is conferred as following (Aylesbury Mushroom Case 1972)45.

42

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp (1948) 1 KB 223 http://www.lawteacher.net/english-legal-system/lecture-notes/judicial-review.php access date 15.8.2014 44 http://www.lec.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/_assets/lec/m420301l721754/preston_judicial%20review%20o f%20illegality%20and%20irrationality%20of%20administrative%20decisions.pdf access date 15.8.2014 45 (Aylesbury Mushroom Case 1972). 43

BIBLIOGRAPHY Act of Parliament Continental Shelf Act 1964 civil procedural rule 1998 European communities act 1972 Human rights Act 1998 War Damage Act 1965 Attorney General v Jonathan Cape Ltd’ 1946 Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp (1948) 1 KB 223 Aylesbury Mushroom Case (1972). Anisminic V Foreign Compensation comissionn(1968) Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp (1948) 1 KB 223 Burmah oil company v Lord Advocate 1980 AC 1090 Costa v ENEL 1964 ECR 1125 Manuel v Attorney General1983 ch 77 ALL ER 822 Nairn v University of St Andrews 1909 Ac 147 O Reilly v Mackman (1983) 2 Ac 237 Provincial Houses Ltd V Wednesday Corporation(1984) R v Secretary of State for the Envirounment ex Parte Ostier (1976) R v Richmond upon Thames city council ex parte Mccarthy and Stone Ltd(1992)Ac 48.ECtHR(European Court of Human Rights) Van Gend en Loos 1963 CMLR 105 Van Gend en Loos 1963 CMLR 105

Waddington v Miah (1974) 1 WLR 683

Burnett Hilaire,constitutional and administrative law(9th edition Inter alia,Dicey,1885,chapter 14 Jennings,1959 b,p54,Heuston,The rule of Law,in 1964a,p40 Aristotle(384-322) http://www.markedbyteachers.com/as-and-a-level/politics/what-are-the-advantages-anddisadvantages-of-an-unwritten-constitution.html access date(ac)-15.82014 http://www.studymode.com/essays/Advantages-And-Disadvantages-Of-Written-And-1551137.html access date 15.8.2014 https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071107123209AABASqS access date-15.82014 http://direct.mises.org/journals/jls/2_1/2_1_2.pdf access date 15.8.2014 http://www.lawteacher.net/english-legal-system/lecture-notes/judicial-review.php access date 15.8.2014 http://www.lec.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/_assets/lec/m420301l721754/preston_judicial%20review%20of %20illegality%20and%20irrationality%20of%20administrative%20decisions.pdf access date 15.8.2014