LAW

Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-R v Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards ex p Al Fayed (1998)
Case Summary: This case concerns a judicial review application against the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Al Fayed sought review of the Commissioner's decision rejecting his complaint of ministerial corruption. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application.
Key Issue: Can the courts judicially review decisions of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards? The answer is no.
Facts:
  • Al Fayed alleged a minister corruptly received payment.
  • The Commissioner rejected the complaint.
  • Al Fayed sought judicial review.
Decision: The Court of Appeal refused the application for judicial review based on the following reasoning:
  • Parliamentary Oversight: Parliament, through its standing orders, vests responsibility for supervising the Commissioner in the Committee of Standards and Privileges, not the courts.
  • Integrated Function: The Commissioner's role is integral to the Committee's functions, which are considered part of Parliament's proceedings.
  • Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688: This article protects Parliament's proceedings from court scrutiny. Therefore, the Commissioner's actions, being part of these proceedings, are also protected.
  • Distinction from Ombudsman: The Commissioner's role differs from the Ombudsman (as established in R v Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration ex p Dyer (1994)). The Ombudsman investigates government actions, while the Commissioner deals with the propriety of actions within Parliament. This difference in function justifies the different treatment regarding judicial review.
Ratio Decidendi (The Key Legal Principle): The courts will not review decisions of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards because Parliament has assigned oversight to its own internal mechanisms (the Committee of Standards and Privileges). This is a matter of "mutuality of respect between two sovereignties" (the judiciary and Parliament). The courts will only intervene if the Commissioner acted ultra vires (beyond their legal powers).
Important Distinctions:
  • Ombudsman vs. Commissioner: The Ombudsman is reviewable; the Commissioner is not. Their distinct roles and the nature of their accountability are crucial.
Key Concepts to Understand:
  • Judicial Review: The process by which courts review the lawfulness of government decisions. Order 53 governs judicial review in the context.
  • Ultra Vires: Acting beyond one's legal authority. This is the only ground upon which a court might intervene.
  • Parliamentary Privilege: The principle that Parliament is self-governing and not subject to interference from the courts in its internal affairs.
  • Separation of Powers: The relationship between the legislative (Parliament), executive (Government), and judicial (Courts) branches of government. This case highlights the limits of judicial review in the face of parliamentary privilege.
Study Questions:
  1. Why was judicial review denied in this case?
  2. What is the key distinction between the Ombudsman and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards in the context of judicial review?
  3. What is the significance of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688 in this case?
  4. Under what circumstances might a court intervene in a decision made by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards?
  5. How does this case illustrate the concept of separation of powers?
This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of R v Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards ex p Al Fayed (1998). Ensure you understand the core principles and can answer the study questions. Remember to consult the full case text for a more detailed understanding.



Picture
0 Comments

Author

Learn the fact about law