Critically analyse whether it is ever appropriate for a court to review the substantive merits of a public body's decision? When and why?

Not talking about procedural impropriety or illegality

Talking more about (irrationality) wednesbury and proportionality

What do you think the purpose of JR

Is it rule of law, or parliamentary sovereignty

Is it ever appropriate for a court to look at the substance of a public body decision rather than the procedure?

Talk about and analyse wednesbury and proportionality

When and why ? - in what circumstances should courts be able to review the substance of PB decision

Use cases, journals/academic opinions Proportionality arguments - it can be moderated

(can you add to the text below by using the information above)

-----------------

In some situations, it is acceptable for a court to review the substantial merits of a decision that was made by a public authority. Judicial review, often known as JR, is a method that is used to guarantee that public entities appropriately execute their authority in a manner that is consistent with the rule of law. Considerations of substantive irrationality and proportionality can also be legitimate arguments for court involvement, despite the fact that procedural impropriety and illegality are frequently the grounds for judicial review (JR).

It is one of the primary goals of JR to ensure that the rule of law is maintained. Because of this, it is necessary for public authorities to make judgments that are sensible and based on relevant factors. In the case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223, the court created the Wednesbury test, which is also known as the test for determining whether or not an individual is irrational. From the perspective of this criteria, a decision would be deemed illogical if it could not have been reached by any public entity that could be regarded reasonable. In situations where a conclusion is so irrational that it exceeds the bounds of what is considered to be acceptable decision-making, this enables the courts to step in and intervene.

Furthermore, the idea of proportionality has become increasingly important in international human rights law. It may also serve as a foundation for evaluating the effectiveness of a decision made by a public entity in terms of its substantive strengths. The principle of proportionality requires one to take into consideration whether a choice is required, reasonable, and strikes a fair balance between the rights of individuals and the interests of the public. It provides the courts with the ability to determine whether a decision made by a public entity violates the rights of persons in a manner that is disproportionate to the legitimate objective that was pursued from the beginning. In instances such as R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] UKHL 26, the House of Lords examined the principle of proportionality in order to determine whether or not the indefinite imprisonment of non-UK foreign nationals was within the bounds of the law.

Courts have to have the authority to examine the content of a decision made by a public entity where the decision in question pertains to problems concerning basic rights, such as civil freedoms, human rights, or constitutional concerns. In situations like these, it is essential to make certain that the decision-making process was just and that the choice itself was appropriate. One case that illustrates this is R (Nicklinson) v. Ministry of Justice [2014] UKSC 38, in which the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom evaluated the substantive merits of a judgment about the right to die. The court conducted a proportionality analysis in order to assess whether or not the blanket prohibition on assisted suicide was justifiable, or whether or not it disproportionately impacted on the individual's right to autonomy.

A cautious approach should be used when considering the role of the court in evaluating the substantive merits of a decision made by a public body. This is an important point to keep in mind. The democratic legitimacy of public entities and the deference of the judiciary to the decision-making process of experts are other crucial factors to take into consideration. When there are obvious reasons for intervention, such as irrationality or disproportionality, and when the decision concerns substantial rights or interests, the court should only step in to make a decision.

In conclusion, there are specific situations in which it is proper for a court to examine the substantive merits of a judgment made by a public authority. The grounds of irrationality and proportionality offer appropriate arguments for the involvement of the court in order to guarantee that public authorities will make decisions that are logical and will respect basic rights. On the other hand, this power of review need to be employed with prudence, taking into consideration the norms of democratic legitimacy and judicial respect. The ultimate goal of such a review is to ensure that the rule of law is maintained and that individual rights are properly protected.