- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex p Lain (1967)
This case examines the scope of the court's supervisory jurisdiction, specifically whether the writ of certiorari can be used to review decisions of a non-statutory body exercising prerogative powers.
I. Core Issue: Can the court's supervisory jurisdiction (via certiorari) reach decisions of a body established under prerogative powers, not statute, and whose decisions aren't legally enforceable?
II. Facts:
This case examines the scope of the court's supervisory jurisdiction, specifically whether the writ of certiorari can be used to review decisions of a non-statutory body exercising prerogative powers.
I. Core Issue: Can the court's supervisory jurisdiction (via certiorari) reach decisions of a body established under prerogative powers, not statute, and whose decisions aren't legally enforceable?
II. Facts:
- The Body: The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (non-statutory, established via prerogative powers).
- The Applicant: Widow of a police constable seeking compensation.
- The Decision: The Board deducted existing payments (National Insurance & pension) from the award, resulting in no additional compensation.
- The Argument: The Board claimed immunity from judicial review on two grounds:
- Lack of "legal authority": They weren't established by statute.
- No enforceable rights: Their decisions didn't create legally binding rights.
- The Remedy Sought: Certiorari to quash the Board's decision.
- Argument 1: "Legal Authority" (The Board's lack of statutory basis):
- Board's Position: Atkin LJ's definition in Ex p London Electricity Joint Committee Co limited judicial review to bodies with statutory authority.
- Court's Rebuttal (Lord Parker CJ): Certiorari applies not only to statutory courts but also to those with prerogative authority. The extension of certiorari to tribunals (rather than just courts) makes it applicable to prerogative bodies. Parliamentary recognition and funding further support the Board's public character.
- Argument 2: "Enforceable Rights" (Lack of legally binding decisions):
- Board's Position: Atkin LJ's definition requires decisions affecting legally enforceable rights.
- Court's Rebuttal (Lord Parker CJ): Atkin LJ's principle wasn't so narrowly defined. Certiorari's scope isn't rigidly defined.
- The Court's Broadened Definition: The court significantly expanded the scope of certiorari to include any body:
- Of a public (not purely private or domestic) nature;
- That determines matters affecting subjects;
- And has a duty to act judicially.
- Expansion of Certiorari's Reach: The case broadened the application of certiorari beyond bodies with statutory powers to include those established under prerogative powers.
- Public Nature: The body must be of a public, not private, character. Funding from and recognition by Parliament are relevant factors in determining this.
- Impact on Subjects: The decisions must affect individuals' rights or interests, even if not creating strictly enforceable legal rights.
- Duty to Act Judicially: The body must act fairly and impartially, applying relevant rules and evidence. This doesn't mean it must be a court but must adhere to principles of fairness and due process.
- What were the two main arguments put forth by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to resist judicial review?
- How did the court respond to each of these arguments?
- What are the three key criteria established by the court for applying certiorari to a body? Explain each criterion.
- How does this case broaden the scope of judicial review? What are the implications of this expansion?
- How does the case's reasoning affect our understanding of the relationship between prerogative powers and judicial review?
0 Comments