Public -> JR answer structure

The validity of the argument may be challenged by JR, because as laid down in O’Reilly v Mackman, it concerns the activities of a public body in matters relating to public law. The grounds of challenge are … illegality (AG v Fulham Corp), Irrationality/unreasonableness (Wednesbury) or procedural Impropriety (Bradbury v Enfield LBC).

Procedural Impropriety & Natural Justice

Claimant must apply within 3 months to the administrative court under s.31 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 for permission to make an application for JR, with locus standi.

Establish a right to a fair hearing (Ridge v Baldwin) when an individual severely affected by a decision he must be afforded an opportunity to hear and refute the case against them. Before any decision is reached the claimant must be given an opportunity to hear and refute the case against them.

Before any decision is reached the claimant must be given an opportunity to state her case and in order to do this it is necessary that she is informed of matters of concern beforehand, so that she has an effective time to prepare a defence. As in R v Thames Magistrates Court exp Polemis "it’s a breach of natural justice to serve a summons on a defendant in the morning and try him that afternoon as he had no chance to prepare a defence". However if the court believes a granting a hearing would be pointless as the decision would still be the same, then it may choose not to allow a hearing (Glynn v Keele University).

A right to legal representation from R v Maze Prison exp Hone states there’s no absolute right to legal representation however R v Home Sec exp Tarrant says an adjudicatory body must consider in each case whether to permit legal representation baring in mind an unreasonable refusal could invalidate the proceedings. Although its difficult to prove you should be represent but can show an unreasonable refusal was a breach of natural justice.

Taking into account relevant information/evidence (R v Hull Prison exp St Germain) however Osgood v Nelson suggests it is acceptable for a subordinate to collect evidence for them.

Right to cross examine as held in Bushell v Sec of State for Environment is an automatic right in oral hearings.

An allegation that one member of the tribunal was biased is potentially enough to invalidate a decision. Two forms of bias lead to automatic disqualification; a financial interest (Dime v Grand) and a direct association with a party to the case (Exp Pinochet). Other indirect forms of bias the courts have to apply the test from Porter v Magill which asked ‘Whether the fair minded and informed observer would consider there was a real possibility or danger of bias?

There is no general duty in common law to give reasons for a decision, although there are numerious statutes which state a reason is to be given and failure to do so would be a breach of a statutory requirement. Failure to give reasons may invalidate a decision if in order to have a fair hearing the applicant requires an explanation of the reason (R v Sec of State for Home Dep exp Doody).

Remedies vary from a Quashing order to a mandatory Order.