No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Judicial review and immigration policy: emerging trends
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2018
Extract
Some recent attitudes to the scope of judicial review in the field of immigration policy represent a sharp contrast with the trends which typify the current renaissance in administrative law. The conspicuous features of modern developments are the range and intensity ofjudicial initiatives in expanding, almost beyond recognition, the parameters within which the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction is warranted in principle. Despite some suggestions to the contrary, it is not altogether satisfactory to regard the revamped notion oferror oflaw as an organising principle which supplants review mechanisms founded on the bedrock of vires; but it is quite evident that the theory of jurisdiction which lies at the root of seminal concepts sustaining the framework of judicial review is in the process of being transformed by contemporary ap roaches. The virtual equation of error of law with jurisdictional excess at any rate in regard to administrative tribunals as distinguished from inferior courts, has dramatically enlarged the scope of judicial review on the ground of jurisdictional fault, especially in the light of radical perceptions of the criteria which are called in aid to identify errors of law.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 1988
References
1. J. Beatson, ‘The Scope for Judicial Review for Error of Law’ [1984] Oxf Journal of Leg St 22.
2. Pearlman v Keepers and Governors of Harrow School [1979] QB 56 at 70, CA, per Lord Denning MR.
3. Re Racal Communications Ltd [1981] AC 374 at 383–384, HL, per Lord Diplock.
4. G. L. Peiris, ‘Jurisdictional Review and Judicial Policy: The Evolving Mosaic’ (1987) 103 LQR 66.
5. At pp 94–100.
6. At pp 100–104.
7. G. L. Peiris, ‘Wednesbury Unreasonableness: The Expanding Canvas’ [1987] 46 CLJ 53–82.
8. Hoffmann-La Roche & Co v Secretary of state for Trade and Industry [1975] AC 295 at 358, per Lord Wilberforce; cf Denton v Auckland City [1969] NZLR 256 at 268, (SC 0f NZ) per Speight J.
9. H. W. R. Wade, Administrative Law (5th edn, 1982) p 312.
10. G. L. Peiris, ‘Natural Justice and Degrees of Invalidity of Administrative Action’ [1983] PL 634.
11. J. Beatson,‘“‘Public” and “Private” in English Administrative Law’ [1987] 103 LQR 34, ‘G. L. Peiris, ’The Exclusivity of Judicial Review Procedure: The Growing Boundary Dispute’ (1986) 15 Anglo-American Law Review 83.
12. H.W.R. Wade,‘Procedure and Prerogative in Public Law’ (1985) 101 LQR 180, 182.
13. R v Secretary of State for Home Affairs, ex p Budd [1942] 2 KB 14.
14. At 22–23.
15. Greene v Home Secretary [1942] AC 284 at 302.
16. [1974] AC 18.
17. At 32.
18. [1969] 2 QB 222.
19. At 233.
20. At 230.
21. At 233.
22. Ibid.
23. [1978] 1 WLR 1177.
24. Rule 51 of HC 79 (Statement of Immigration Rules for Control on Entry: Commonwealth Citizens).
25. Ibid.
26. [1978] 1 WLR 1177 at 1181.
27. [1977] 1 WLR 1466.
28. At 1469.
29. R v Secretary of state for Home Affairs, ex p O'Brien [1923] 2 KB 361 at 393.
30. Ibid.
31. Eshugbayi Eleko v Government of Nigeria [1931] AC 662 at 670, per Lord Atkin.
32. [1931] AC 662.
33. At 670.
34. [1942] 1 KB 87.
35. At 102.
36. See the argument of Mr Louis Blom-Cooper QC referred to by Lord Wilberforce in R v Horn Secretary, ex p Zamir [1980] 3 WLR 249 at 254, HL.
37. R v Home Secretary, ex p Khawaja [1984] 1 AC 74 at 110, HL, per Lord Scarman.
38. [1942] AC 206.
39. R v IRC, ex p Rossmimter Ltd [1980] AC 952 at 1011, 1025.
40. [1942] AC 206 at 245.
41. See n 5 supra.
42. R v Home Secretary, ex p Zamir [1980] 3 WLR 249 at 255, HL.
43. At 254.
44. George v Secretary of State for the Environment (1979) 77 LGR 689.
45. O'Reilly v Madman [1983] 2 AC 237 at 282.
46. Cocks v Thanet DC [1983] 2 AC 286 at 294.
47. Heywood v Hull Prison Visitors [1980] 1 WLR 1386.
48. R v IRC, ex p Rossminister [1980] AC 952 at 1025–1026.
49. Ibid.
50. Khawaja v Secretary of Statc for the Home Department [1983] 1 All ER 756 at 795.
51. R v Home Secretary, ex p Zamir [1980] 3 WLR 249 at 255, HL per Lord Wilberforce.
52. Ibid.
53. See n 51 supra.
54. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Mughal [1974] QB 313 at 325, per Lord Denning MR.
55. Ibid.
56. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Choudhary [1978] I WLR 117 7 at 1183, CA.
57. Ibid.
58. R v Secretary of state for the Home Department, exp Parvaz Akhtar [1980] 3 WLR 302 at 308.
59. See Zamir's case, n 51 supra, at 255.
60. [1979] 1 QB 264.
61. At 267.
62. 64. Ibid.
63. [1984] 1 AC 74 at 110.
64. Ibid.
65. See Khawaja's case, n 51 supra, at 111.
66. [1986] 1 All ER 717; but see dicta to the contrary in Zamir's case, n 51 supra, at 255.
67. [1986] 1 All ER 717 at 723–724.
68. R v Chief Constable of the Merseyside Police, ex p Calveley [1986] 1 All ER 257; see also R v Epping and Harlow General Commissioners, ex p Goldstraw [1983] 3 All ER 257 at 262.
69. Swati's case, n 67 supra, at 723.
70. J. Beatson, ‘“Public” and “Private” in English Administrative Law’ (1967) 103 LQR 34, 41 commenting on R v Commissionfor Racial Equality, ex p Westminster CC [1984] ICR 770 and R v Monopolies Commission, ex p Argyll Group [1986] 2 All ER 567.
71. See for fuller discussion of this point, G. L. Peiris ‘Jurisdictional Review and Judicial Policy: The Evolving Mosaic’ (1987) 103 LQR 66, 82.
72. Ex p Wuldron [1986] QB 524 at 852, R v IRC, ex p Preston [1985] AC 835 at 862.
73. Swati's case, n 67 supra, at 724.
74. Ibid.
75. Section 16.
76. See Zamir's case, n 51 supra, at 255.
77. See Swati's case, n 67 supra, at 723–724.
78. [1980] 3 All ER 373.
79. See Swati's case, n 67 supra, at 727–728.
80. At 724.
81. Chief Comtablc of the North Wales Police v Evans [1982] 3 All ER 141 at 154.
82. Secretary of State for Education and science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1977] AC 1014 at 1047, HL per Lord Wilberforce.
83. At 1030, CA per Scarman LJ.
84. Secretary of state for Employment v ASLEF (No 2) [1972] 2 QB 455 at 493 followed in Smith v Inner London Education Authority [1978] 1 All ER 411.
85. G. L. Peiris, ‘Patent Error of Law and the Borders of Jurisdiction: The Commonwealth Experience Assessed’ (1984) 4 LS 271, 289–290.
86. See, for a critical discussion of these developments, G. L. Peiris,' Wednesbury Unreasonableness: The Expanding Canvas' [1987] 46 CLJ 53–82.
87. See particularly 62–74.
88. [1986] 1 All ER 467.
89. Cocks v Thanet DC [1982] 3 All ER 1135.
90. See Puhlhofer's case, n 88 supra, at 474.
91. Ibid.
92. Ibid.
93. At 469.
94. Ibid.
95. M. Sunkin, ‘Judicial Review after Puhlhofer and Swati: Is the Administration Still Challengeable?’ [1986] 136 NLJ 304–306.
96. See Swati's case, n 67 supra, at 722.
97. At 725.
98. At 723.
99. At 722.
100. Council of Civil Service Unions v Minicter for the Civil Seruice [1984] 3 All ER 935 at 950.
101. See Swati's case, n 67 supra, at 721.
102. Ibid.
103. R. B. Steward, ‘Reformation of Administrative Law’ (1975) 88 Harv LR 1669.
104. A. C. Hutchinson, ‘The Rise and Ruse of Administrative Law and Scholarship’ ([1985) 48 MLR 193.
105. See Zamir's case, n 51 supra, at 256–257.
106. [1984] 1 AC 74 at 107–108, HL.
107. Ibid.
108. Ibid.
109. [1982] 1 WLR 405.
110. At 408.
111. [1986] 1 WLR 155.
112. At 160–161.
113. Ibid.
114. [1977] 1 WLR 1466.
115. At 1471.
116. [1984] 1 AC 74 at 119.
117. Ibid.
118. [1977] 1 WLR 766.
119. See n 38 supra.
120. See Hosenball's case, n 118 supra, at 783.
121. At 778, 786.
122. At 784.
123. Cmnd 9171 and Cmd 3096.
124. See Bugdaycay's case, n 111 supra, at 161.
125. Bushel1 v Secretary of state for the Environment [1981] AC 75 at 123, per Lord Lane CJ.
126. South Oxfordshire DC V Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] I WLR 1092 at 1099, per Woolf J.
127. R v Vine Street Police Station Superintendent, ex p Liebmann [1916] 1 KB 268.
128. R v Bottrill, ex p Kuechenmeister [1947] KB 41.
129. Musgrove v Chun Teeong Toy [1891] AC 272.
130. R v Halliday [1917] AC 260.
131. R v Leman Strcet Police Station Inspector, ex p Venicoff [1920] 3 KB 72.
132. R v Brixton Prison Governor, ex p Soblen [1963] 2 QB 243.
133. See the Immigration Act 1971, ss 3(5), 5, 7.