1. Judicial Review 3 (III) PROCEDURAL IMPROPRIETY Divided into two categories; (a) Breach of Express Statutory Requirements (b) Breach of Fair Procedure Note limits of the Court’s role here (nb Ward v. Bradford Corporation (1971) 70 LGR 27.)

2. Judicial Review 3 (a) Breach of Express Statutory Requirements Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board v. Aylesbury Mushrooms [1972] 1 All ER 280. R v. Brent LBC ex p Gunning (1985) 84 LGR 168. R v. S of S for Social Services ex p AMA [1986] 1 All ER 164 Consequences of failure to comply??

3. Judicial Review 3 (b) Breach of Fair Procedure Two sub-categories (i) The Rule Against Bias NB : R v. Sussex Justices ex p McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256, 259 per Lord Hewart CJ: "It is not merely of some importance but of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."

4. Judicial Review 3 NB no actual bias need be shown. R v. Gough [1993] 2 All ER 724. R v. Inner West London Coroner ex p Dallaglio [1994] 4 All ER 139. R v. Bow Street Stipendiary Magistrate and ors ex p Pinochet Ugarte [1999] 1 All ER 577 Locobail (UK) Ltd v. Bayfield Properties Ltd (2000) QB 451

5. Judicial Review 3 (ii) The Right to a Fair Hearing Ridge v. Baldwin [1964] AC 40 What is a fair hearing? The person must know the case against him - Kanda v. Government of Malaya [1962] AC 322. He must have sufficient time to prepare his own case - R v. Thames Magistrates' Court ex p Polemis [1974] 1 WLR 1371

6. Judicial Review 3 Exceptions to this rule: Public Interest : R v. Gaming Board for Great Britain ex p Benaim and Khaida [1970] 2 All ER 528. National Security : R v. S of S for the Home Department ex p Hosenball [1977] 3 All ER 452, R v. S of S for the Home Department ex p Cheblak [1991] 2 All ER 319. Note the difference between the exceptions.

7. Judicial Review 3 Should the person be legally represented? - Pitt v. Greyhound Association of Great Britain [1968] 2 All ER 545, R v. S of S for the Home Department ex p Tarrant [1985] QB 251. Should the Public Body be required to give reasons for its decision? Payne v. Harris [1982] 2 All ER 842., R v. Civil Service Appeal Board ex p Cunningham [1991] 4 All ER 310,Doody v. S of S for the Home Department [1993] 3 All ER 92 Why shouldn’t public bodies give reasons for their decisions?

8. Judicial Review 3 PROPORTIONALITY R v. S of S for the Home Department ex p Brind [1991] 1 All ER 720 R v. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council ex p Hook [1976] 1 WLR 102. See now The effect of the Human Rights Act 1998.

9. Judicial Review 3 The Human Rights Act 1998 R v. S of S for the Home Department ex p Daly [2001] UKHL 26 Conclusion.