Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-54qdv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T10:24:14.346Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vindicating common law constitutionalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Justin Leslie
Justin Leslie*
Affiliation:
University College London; Middle Temple
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper questions Thomas Poole's assertion that judicial review is not ‘value orientated’ (see (2005) 25(1) Legal Studies 146). In doing so, the paper seeks to demonstrate that the account of judicial review given by common law constitutionalist writers provides an accurate description of the approach taken by the courts in the last 10 years. The paper first considers Poole's objections to common law constitutionalism. It then proceeds to assess the writings of those relied upon by Poole against the case-law of the last decade. This is done by reference to three ‘themes’– the basis of judicial review; a substantive rule of law; fundamental values and constitutional rights. The paper concludes by suggesting that when a thematic approach to the theory is adopted, the case-law of the last decade provides vindication for the main tenets of common law constitutionalism.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , June 2010 , pp. 301 - 323
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. Inland Revenue Commissioners v National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses[1982] AC 617 at 641.

2. Woolf, Lord, Jowell, J and Le Sueur, A (eds) De Smith's Judicial Review (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 6th edn, 2007) p 3.Google Scholar

3. Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis[2009] UKHL 5, [2009] AC 564.

4. RB (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2009] UKHL 10, [2009] 4 All ER 1045.

5. Secretary of State for Justice v James[2009] UKHL 22, [2009] 4 All ER 255.

6. Smith v Northamptonshire County Council[2009] UKHL 27, [2009] 4 All ER 557.

7. Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF[2009] UKHL 28, (2009) 26 BHRC 738.

8. Birmingham City Council v Ali[2009] UKHL 36, [2009] 4 All ER 161.

9. R (Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions[2009] UKHL 45.

10. JAG Griffith ‘The Political Constitution’[1979] MLR 16.

11. Plato, The Republic (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1941) Book VII.Google Scholar

12. T Poole ‘Back to the future? Unearthing the theory of common law constitutionalism’[2003] OJLS 435.

13. Poole, T Questioning common law constitutionalism’ (2005) 25 LS 142.Google Scholar

14. Poole, above n 12, at 439.

15. For a discussion of the limits of judicial review, see Woolf, Jowell and Le Sueur, above n 2, pp 15–22.

16. Poole, above n 13, at 155.

17. Ibid.

18. For instance, we could add David Dyzenhaus, Sir Stephen Sedley and Wilfrid J Waluchow.

19. Craig, P Administrative Law (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 6th edn, 2008) p 25.Google Scholar

20. For a discussion of ‘normativist’ theories, see Loughlin, M Public Law and Political Theory (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992).Google Scholar

21. Allan, Trs Law Liberty and Justice (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993) p vii.Google Scholar

22. P Craig ‘Ultra vires and the foundations of judicial review’[1998] CLJ 63 and ‘Competing models of judicial review’[1999] PL 428. See also Forsyth, C (ed) Judicial Review and the Constitution (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2000).Google Scholar

23. J Jowell ‘Of vires and vacuums: the constitutional context of judicial review’[1999] PL 460.

24. Jowell's work has been cited by the House of Lords. In particular see R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2001] UKHL 26, [2001] 2 AC 532 at [27]–[28]; A v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2004] UKHL 56, [2005] 2 AC 68 at [42]; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Pierson[1998] AC 539 at 590.

25. Oliver, D Common Values and the Public–Private Divide (London: Butterworths, 1999).Google Scholar

26. Oliver's articles ‘The frontiers of the state: public authorities and public functions under the Human Rights Act’[2000] PL 476 and ‘Functions of a public nature under the Human Rights Act [2004] PL 329 formed part of the majority's reasoning in YL v Birmingham City Council[2007] UKHL 27, [2008] AC 95.

27. See Poole, above n 13, at 146–155.

28. Ibid, at 145.

29. Ibid.

30. Craig, above n 19, p 27.

31. Poole, above n 13, at 146–155.

32. Ibid, at 146.

33. Ibid, at 148.

34. Ibid, at 149.

35. Ibid, at 152.

36. Ibid, at 153.

37. Ibid, at 154.

38. D Oliver ‘Law, politics and public accountability’[1994] PL 250, quoting Lester, A and Bindman, G Race and Law in Britain (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972) p 70.Google Scholar

39. Oliver, D Constitutional Reform in the UK (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) p 391.Google Scholar

40. Poole, above n 13, at 160.

41. Ibid, at 161.

42. D Oliver ‘Is ultra vires the basis of judicial review?’[1987] PL 543.

43. R v Panel on Takeovers and Mergers, ex p Datafin plc[1987] 2 WLR 699.

44. Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service[1985] AC 374 at 410–411.

45. Ibid, at 410.

46. Ibid.

47. Ibid.

48. Oliver, above n 42, at 567.

49. See C Forsyth ‘Of fig leaves and fairy tales’[1996] CLJ 122 and M Elliott ‘The ultra vires doctrine in a constitutional setting’[1999] CLJ 129. P Craig's ‘Ultra vires and the foundations of judicial review’[1998] CLJ 63 specifically targets Forsyth. ‘Competing models of judicial review’[1999] PL 428 focuses on Elliott's work.

50. Craig ‘Ultra vires and the foundations of judicial review’, above n 22, at 90.

51. J Laws ‘Judicial review: the ghost in the machine’[1989] PL 29.

52. Laws ‘Law and democracy’[1995] PL 79.

53. Laws ‘Public law and employment law’[1997] PL 464.

54. Jowell, above n 23, at 459.

55. Ibid, at 460.

56. TRS Allan ‘The constitutional foundations of judicial review’[2002] CLJ 88.

57. TRS Allan ‘The rule of law as the foundation of judicial review’ in Forsyth, above n 22, p 414.

58. See Allan, above n 56.

59. See n 42.

60. TRS Allan ‘Constitutional dialogue and the justification for judicial review’[2003] OJLS 578.

61. Ibid, at 584.

62. P Craig ‘Constitutional foundations, the rule of law and supremacy’[2003] PL 92 at 109.

63. TRS Allan ‘Legislative supremacy and legislative intent’[2004] OJLS 563.

64. YL v Birmingham City Council[2007] UKHL 27, [2007] 3 WLR 112; Section 145 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

65. Craig ‘Competing models of judicial review’, above n 22.

66. J Jowell ‘Beyond the rule of law’[2000] PL 681.

67. J Jowell ‘Parliamentary sovereignty under the new constitutional hypothesis’[2006] PL 378.

68. Oliver, above n 39, p 354.

69. Ibid.

70. Ibid, p 357.

71. Laws, above n 52, p 84.

72. Laws, , ‘Constitutional guarantees 2008 Statute Law Review 5.Google Scholar

73. International Transport Roth GmbH v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2002] EWCA Civ 158, [2003] QB 728 at [71].

74. J Jowell ‘The rule of law's long arm’[2004] PL 246.

75. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Simms[2000] 2 AC 115 at 131.

76. Boddington v British Transport Police[1999] 2 AC 143 at 164.

77. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Doody[1994] 1 AC 531.

78. Regina v Gough[1993] AC 646 and Porter v Magill[2001] UKHL 67, [2002] 2 AC 357.

79. R (Coughlan) v North & East Devon Health Authority[2000] 2 WLR 622.

80. Rowland v Environment Agency[2003] EWCA Civ 1885, [2005] Ch 1.

81. Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers in R (Corner House Research) v Secretary of State for Trade & Industry[2005] EWCA Civ 192, [2005] 1 WLR 260 at [74].

82. R (Beeson) v Dorset CC[2002] EWCA Civ 1812 at [17].

83. Re F[2001] Fam 38 at 56.

84. Re S (Minors)[2002] UKHL 10, [2002] 2 WLR 720 at [39].

85. R (Jackson) v Attorney General[2005] UKHL 56, [2006] 1 AC 262 at [104].

86. Ibid, at [102].

87. Ibid, at [107].

88. Ibid, at [168].

89. Ibid, at [120].

90. Ibid, at [126].

91. TRS Allan ‘The rule of law as the rule of reason’[1999] LQR 244 (emphasis added).

92. For an in-depth discussion, see P Craig ‘Formal and substantive conceptions of the rule of law’[1997] PL 467.

93. P Craig Administrative Law (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 3rd edn, 1994) p 22.

94. Allan, Trs Constitutional Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

95. Ibid, p 1.

96. Ibid, p 67.

97. TRS Allan In Defence of the Common Law Constitution LSE Law, Society and Economy Working Papers (5/2009, 2009) p 5.

98. TRS Allan ‘Human rights and judicial review’[2006] CLJ 671.

99. Laws, above n 52, at 80.

100. Laws ‘The constitution: morals and rights’[1996] PL 630.

101. I Berlin ‘Two concepts of liberty’ in Four Essays on Liberty (Oxford: Oxford Paperbacks, 1969) p 3.

102. Mill, JS On Liberty (London: Everyman's Library, 1992) p 13.Google Scholar

103. Craig ‘Competing models of judicial review’, above n 22, at 431.

104. P Craig ‘Theory, “pure theory” and values in public law’[2005] PL 441.

105. Ibid.

106. See for instance Jowell, above n 67.

107. Jowell, above n 74, at 246.

108. Pierson, above n 24.

109. Jowell, above n 23, at 460.

110. D Oliver ‘Law, politics and public accountability’[1994] PL 238 at 250.

111. Ibid, at 248.

112. Ibid, quoting Lester and Bindman, above n 38, p 70.

113. Oliver, above n 39, p 390.

114. Lord Diplock Black-Clawson International Ltd v Papierwerke Waldhof-Aschaffenberg AG[1975] AC 591 at 638.

115. R (Al-Jedda) v Secretary of State for Defence[2007] UKHL 58, [2008] AC 332 at [130].

116. R (Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2003] UKHL 51, [2004] 1 AC 653 at [20].

117. Seal v Chief Constable of South Wales Police[2007] UKHL 31, [2007] 1 WLR 1910 at [55].

118. Polanski v Condé Nast Publications Ltd[2005] UKHL 10, [2005] 1 All ER 945 at [61].

119. A v United Kingdom 26 BHRC 1.

120. Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF (No 3)[2009] UKHL 28, (2009) 26 BHRC 738 at [83].

121. Attorney General v Punch Ltd[2002] UKHL 50, [2003] 1 AC 1046 at [32].

122. Begum v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council (2003) Hous LR 20 at [42].

123. E v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary[2008] UKHL 66, [2009] AC 536 at [55].

124. RB (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2009] UKHL 10, [2009] 4 All ER 1045 at [210].

125. Attorney General's Reference (No 2 of 2001)[2003] UKHL 68, [2004] 2 AC 72 at [79].

126. South Bucks District Council v Porter[2003] UKHL 26, [2003] 2 AC 558 at [53].

127. R (Corner House Research) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office[2008] UKHL 60, [2008] 4 All ER 927 at [24].

128. R (Mullen) v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2004] UKHL 18, [2005] 1 AC 1 at [8] quoting R v Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court, ex p Bennett[1994] 1 AC 42 at 61–62.

129. Jackson, above n 85, at [107].

130. R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator[2004] UKHL 26, [2004] 2 AC 323 at [43].

131. Montgomery v HM Advocate[2003] 1 AC 641 at 673.

132. Begum, above n 122, at [35].

133. Jackson, above n 85, at [159].

134. Al Jedda, above n 115, at [122].

135. Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza[2004] UKHL 30, [2004] 1 AC 260 at [9].

136. RB (Algeria), above n 124, at [210].

137. R (Rusbridger) v Attorney General[2003] UKHL 38, [2004] 1 AC 357 at [7].

138. AF, above n 120.

139. TRS Allan ‘The politics of the British constitution’[2000] PL 380.

140. Allan, above n 60, at 582.

141. Tocqueville, A Democracy in America (New York: Wordsworth Editions, 2000) Book XV.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

142. Craig, above n 62, at 97.

143. Laws, above n 100, at 623.

144. R (Witham) v Lord Chancellor[1998] 2 WLR 849 at [23].

145. Pierson, above n 24.

146. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Leech (No 2)[1993] 3 WLR 1125.

147. Witham, above n 144.

148. Simms, above n 75.

149. R (Lightfoot) v Lord Chancellor[1998] EWHC Admin 827 at [35].

150. Jowell, above n 74, at 248.

151. Council of Civil Service Unions, above n 44, at 410.

152. What ‘equality’ at common law amounts to is an on-going debate. See Association of British Civilian Internees & Far Eastern Region v Secretary of State for Defence[2003] EWCA Civ 473, [2003] QB 1397; R (Rudi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2007] EWCA Civ 1326.

153. J Jowell ‘Judicial deference’[2003] PL 598.

154. Craig, above n 62, at 96.

155. Oliver, above n 42, at 566.

156. Ibid, at 567.

157. Oliver, above n 25, pp 60–70.

158. Ibid, p 60.

159. Oliver, above n 110, at 248.

160. R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2)[2008] UKHL 61, [2009] AC 453 at [95] quoting DP O'Connelll and A Riordan Opinions on Imperial Constitutional Law (Melbourne: The Law Book Co Ltd, 1971) pp 62–64.

161. M v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions[2006] UKHL 11, [2006] 2 AC 91 at [136].

162. Percy v Board of National Mission of the Church of Scotland[2005] UKHL 73, [2006] 2 AC 28 at [152].

163. R (Limbuela) v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2005] UKHL 66, [2006] 1 AC 396 at [76].

164. R (Khan) v Secretary of State for Health[2003] EWCA Civ 1129, [2004] 1 WLR 971 at [83].

165. Ibid.

166. Austin, above n 3, at [50] quoting McKay v United Kingdom (2006) 44 EHRR 41 at para 30. These rights are ‘unqualified’ in the sense that when they are engaged they are absolute and not subject to proportionality tests. This does not mean that all unqualified rights are without exceptions. For instance, Art 5 contains several exceptions and as Lord Hoffmann has said: ‘The point about the right not to be deprived of one's liberty under article 5 is that, subject to the exceptions, it is unqualified’ (Secretary of State for the Home Department v JJ[2007] UKHL 45, [2008] AC 385 at [35]). My thanks to Annabel Lee for helping me clarify this point.

167. R (Countryside Alliance) v Attorney General[2007] UKHL 52, [2008] AC 719 at [116].

168. M, above n 161, at [5].

169. Khan v Khan[2007] EWCA Civ 399 at [46].

170. Ullah, above n 130, at [65].

171. Bancoult, above n 160, at [123].

172. R (Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2002] EWCA Civ 390, [2003] QB 581 at [61].

173. Lord Mance in Bancoult, above n 160, at [151].

174. Ibid.

175. Roth, above n 73, at [70]–[71].

176. Witham, above n 144, at 581 (emphasis added).

177. R (Hooper) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions[2005] UKHL 29, [2006] 1 All ER 487 at [92].

178. Watkins v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2006] UKHL 17, [2006] 2 AC 395 at [64].

179. R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2001] UKHL 26, [2001] 2 AC 532 at [30].

180. Ibid.

181. R (Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd) v Special Commissioner of Income Tax[2002] UKHL 21, [2003] 1 AC 563 at [7].

182. R v Shayler[2002] UKHL 11, [2003] 1 AC 247 at [73].

183. Ibid, at [21].

184. Watkins, above n 178, at [25].

185. Secretary of State for the Home Department v GG[2009] EWCA Civ 786, [2010] 1 All ER 721 at [30].

186. Ibid, at [12].

187. Bancoult, above n 160, at [89].

188. R (Prolife Alliance) v British Broadcasting Corporation[2002] EWCA Civ 297, [2004] 1 AC 185 at [36].

189. Lightfoot, above n 149, at [55].

190. Watkins, above n 178, at [73].

191. Oliver, above n 39, pp 389–391.