Compose a 2750 words essay on Administration Law. Needs to be plagiarism free!Download file to see previous pages... In civil proceedings the question of what is a sufficient interest is a question of

Compose a 2750 words essay on Administration Law. Needs to be plagiarism free!

In civil proceedings the question of what is a sufficient interest is a question of fact and degree taking into account all the circumstances of the case: R. v Inland Revenue Commissioners Ex p National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982].Where a claimant is not directly affected by the action once the court is satisfied that (s)he is not simply a "meddlesome busybody"1 then it tries to balance the claimant's interest against the public importance of the issues and the remedy sought. The term 'interest' includes any connection between the claimant and the matter to which the claim relates. In R v Secretary of State for the Environment Ex p Rose Theatre Trust Ltd [1990] it was held that a desire to protect an historic site was not sufficient. only an unsuccessful applicant could appeal against a planning decision. Conversely the courts found a sufficient interest when a public spirited citizen sought judicial review of a serious public issue: R. v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Ex p Lord Rees-Mogg [1994].The Law Commission disapproved of the decision in the Rose Theatre case recommending that public interest applications be treated as having sufficient interest. ...

We are therefore confident that BSS will be able to establish sufficient interest both within the context of vindicating the rule of law and that there is no other responsible challenger of the Home Secretary's decision. Having said this under CPR 54.17 the court has discretion to hear any person, which would allow the BSS to submit evidence on the issue, if not to actually commence the action for judicial review.

(b) Generally judicial review is concerned with the lawfulness of the decision making process of public bodies to ensure that powers have not been abused or exceeded. BSS would have to establish that in reaching a decision the Home Secretary had erred in law in this manner.

In Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] (the GCHQ case) Lord Diplock enumerated the categories under which judicial review might be sought:

a) Illegality

b) Irrationality

c) Procedural impropriety or

d) Further development on a case by case basis - particularly with regard to the principle of proportionality which will be important under Human Rights and EU administrative law.

BSS could attempt to establish that the Home Secretary has acted illegally as he has misunderstood his powers under the law. For example we are told that BB has had two prison sentences each of which exceeded 9 months, and that by paragraph 9 of the Entry to the UK Rules, BB therefore would not normally be allowed admittance to the UK. The purpose of the rule seems to be to unequivocally exclude from this country persons who have been convicted anywhere of a criminal offences exceeding 9 months in duration. This would imply that the Home Secretary does not have discretion in the matter.