Understanding Error of Law and Error of Fact - Essay Example

? Error of Law and Error of Fact Error of Law and Error of Fact Understanding Error of the Law One of the biggest concerns in understanding error of law and error of fact usually lies in understanding what the error is in the first place. It may be right to assume that a court will always order summary judgment in a civil case in the event that there is no credible issue of fact, and usually, basing the argument on undisputed facts, the moving party may be entitled to summary judgment. This is to imply that in the event that a case, which has been brought before a court has nothing to do with questions of fact, then it is construed that the only issues are questions of law, which by that understanding deems the fact finding process quite unnecessary1. In light of modern case law on review on the grounds of error of law and error of fact, to say that judicial review is concerned with the legality and not the merits of a decision remains to be seen in how they determine such cases. A critical analysis reveals that error of law and error of facts are indeed only errors inasmuch as the rules of natural justice apply during decision-making. Even so, sometimes a decision maker may not adhere to legal requirement that makes it mandatory for them to comply with the statutory procedure such as wrongfully admitting evidence in the absence of evidence. There have been concerns and various interpretation as to what happens in such a failure, whether it is reviewable as an error of the law2. It is vital to note that failure has the probability of being an error of the law or just a ground for review. For any possible review, the admissibility for a review is only that the ground is an error of the law and an applicant fit into that ground or there is a failure. On the grounds of consideration of certiorari, a prerogative writ overturns a defective decision. As such, it is usually up to a plaintiff seeking certiorari to show that a legal defect in making the decision in question is indeed an error of the law. Taking into consideration judicial authority, there are a number of cases that hold in their specific circumstances that a failure by a decision maker to comply with judicial requirement is an error of the law. For instance, it is an error of the law if a tribunal remitted a matter being determined to an office, which had been abolished as was in the case Commonwealth v Angel3. Besides, a failure to give reasons in beach of a statutory obligation is an error of the law as demonstrated in Dornan v Riodan4. Likewise, the same applies when a judge fails to give proper reasons for a decision in breach of the common obligation law to do so as was seen in the case Commissioner for Railways v Peter5. Error of facts on the other hand may be seen to have a close relationship with error of law. It appears then that there is always a need to engage in fresh analysis whenever there is a need to distinguish between law and facts, and consequently between error of .aw and error of fact. One should observe that the fundamental part to this analysis between error of fact and error of law is anchored on the fundamentals of the law, which are achieved through interpretation of the law, establishing facts, applying the law, and analysis of their compliance with legal procedure. In layman’s language, an error is committed when something is not done in the way it should be done. Therefore, it is determining of an error using law that creates an error of law. The relationship with error of facts errors of fact are always judicially admissible as errors of law. Even though, errors of fact have two claims. The first one is that wrong findings of material facts impede the very purpose of the law by preventing the law from applying to material facts when it should. The law fails to apply to material facts in the sense that the real facts do not come before the law for consideration. On the other hand, the law may also fail by failing to apply wen it should indeed apply6. To understand better the error of facts, a recent court of appeal case of Connolly & Havering LBC v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government7 provides a good example. One should note that the court has been quite reluctant in the past to allow an application of judicial review on ground that a mistake of fact may have been committed. In many cases, it is because they have been considering factual questions to be the domain of public body in question. Connolly observed that as the courts scrutiny of administrative decisions had become more intense, some of the reluctance ha also began to diminish. Indeed, it appears that the court’s weariness to consider questions of fact when dealing with appeals based on issued of law is well established. In the above case, the decision was quashed on the basis of unfairness emanating from mistake of fact. Even so, sometimes there is indeed difficulty when it comes to allowing application for judicial review on the basis of mistake of fact. In the case E v Secretary of State for the Home Department8, it was not quite easy for the appeal court to determine the question. The court held that it was difficult question the concerns whether a decision issued on an incorrect basis of fact may be challenged on an appeal within the boundaries of law. The court had maintained that the question is one that has attracted various arguments and different points of interpretation from academic quarters. In the case Adan v Newham London Borough Council9, one may observe that the court’s weariness to consider questions of fact when dealing with handling appeals is based on law is indeed properly established. As one may observe, it is for the above reason that and in light of unbefitting judicial review proceedings to come to conclusive determination of disputes of fact that judicial review have hardly been based mistakes of fact. It is also important for one to note that judicial reviews are usually concerned with illegality, procedural unfairness and irrationality. In the above case to argue that judicial review is concerned with the legality and no the merits of the decision may suffice the argument depending on the perspective from which the argument has been picked. The case Adan v Newham London Borough Council10 serves as an example where it appears that legality of the decision matters more than the merit of the decision. Sometimes courts have considered legality, but it should be understood that in such cases, the evidence brought about by legality tends to be overwhelming. This is not to justify all cases some of which have questionable been determined based on legality rather than a wholesome assessment. In some instances, considering legality has also helped in setting the right tone for judicial review so that applications for a judicial review may be granted on such basis. In some case, some cases have also demonstrated that sometimes judicial reviews are indeed concerned with merit of the decision rather than legality. It is not all the time that a decision is quashed on the basis of legality alone. In many cases, one may analyze and indeed find out that the judicial decisions go beyond mere provision of the law to further analysis of the issue11. Sometimes, the irrationality aspect as provided for in the law may not be too obvious. Take for instance in the case Begum v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council12, the presiding judge, delivered the judgment that a decision may be quashed if it is found to be based on finding of fact or inference from a fact that is irrational. He went ahead to put forward the courts position that if a decision was made with reference to irrelevant factors or with disregard to relevant factors, then it is not essential to recognize a specific error of the law as long as the decision fails to find support13. In such a case, even if the decision making body was an established authority, then it will still be inferred that the decision making body had failed, misdirected itself in law, misunderstood relevant evidence, or overlooked the relevant evidence. However, even in such circumstances, the court cannot substitute its facts with that of the decision making body even where supporting evidence exists. Probably this last case offers more room for analysis of the interaction of error of law and error of facts. As stated in the above case, Begum v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council14, Lord Millet’s determination points out to a possible close link between legality and merit. Talking about merit in decision, Lord Millet highlighted that that although a decision making body may be empowered to find facts, the process of fact finding and indeed the outcomes and decisions made should be rational. On legality, Lord Millet does observe that in the event that the courts determines that there was error of facts, and through its mechanisms is able to establish the relevant facts, still the court cannot make a determination based on the facts it found on the basis that it is not the fact finding body. As one may observe, it is not entirely right to say that judicial review is concerned with the legality and not the merits of a decision. This is because various judicial decision makers do consider a wide range of factors to make decisions. Decisions may be based on legality sometimes though not all the times15. Bibliographies Adan v Newham London Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 1916 Begum v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [2003] UKHL 5 Black D, ‘The Contradiction Between Equal Protection’s Meaning And Its Legal Substance: How Deliberate Indifference Can Cure It’ (2006)15 Wm. & Mary Bill Rights Journal, 533. Buontempo N, ‘Governmental Liability in Tort and in the Cases of Judicial Review’ (2004) LLD. Thesis, Msida: Faculty of Laws. Christie G, “Developing Case Law: The Future of Consultation and Accommodation” (2006) 39 U.B.C.L. Rev. 139. Commissioner for Railways v Peter (1991) 102 ALR 579 Commonwealth v Angel (1992) 34 FCR 313 at 319; 110 ALR 695 at 701 Connolly & Havering LBC v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government [2009] EWCA Civ 1959. Jones David Phillip and Anne S de Villars, Principles of Administrative Law, 5th ed (Toronto: Carswell, 2009). Dornan v Riodan (1990) 24 FCR; 95 ALR 451 E v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 49 John Jackson, ‘Making Juries Accountable’ (2002) 50 American Journal of Computer L 477. May CN and Ides A, Examples and Explanations: Constitutional Law: National Power and Federalism’ (2012). Stephan Landsman, ‘Of Mushrooms & Nullifiers: Rules of Evidence and the American Jury, 21 St. Louis U. Pub’ (2002) Law Review 65. Waluchow WJ, ‘A Common Law Theory of Judicial Review: The Living Tree. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2009). Read More