Legal Advice - Case Study Example

Running Head: LEGAL ADVICE Legal Advice Insert Introduction Constitutional Law is related to the system of government of thecountry that is how governmental power is allocated; how those committed with such powers are nominated and the degree to which their abilities can be controlled. Administrative Law is a variation of this, focused on the check of governmental abilities in the courts. The constitution of the United Kingdom is a set of laws and principles through which the country is governed. Actually the UK has no sole constitutional document similar to other nations. Thus it can be said that UK follows an "unwritten", uncodified or de facto constitution.[1] The foundation of the British constitution has conventionally been the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty based on which the statutes are passed by Parliament and they are the UKs ultimate and ultimate source of law.[2] Thus the sources of the UK constitution can be divided into 2 categories. One is the legal rules of the constitution which can be found in case laws, subordinate legislation and statutes. While the second source is the non-legal rules which are the informal rules or the Constitutional Conventions. Case Background of the case The case of Greenwich Maritime TV or GMTV, came about as a result of the rejection of their bid of the 14th of July 2009 by the Television Franchise Commission or TFC. The bid was for the license to run television Channel 10, which was announced vacant by TFC. --------------------------------- 1. Barnett, H, Constitutional and Administrative Law, ed5 (2005, London: Cavendish) at 9. Conversly, "A written constitution is one contained within a single document or a [finite] series of documents, with or without amendments", id. 2. This principle was famously enunciated by the legal scholar Albert Venn Dicey, and can be found, for example, in Justice Megarrys judgment in the 1982 case of Manuel v Attorney General. Issues Raised in the case The following issues are raised for the case: First, it is very clear that the bid of GMTV was the highest and this fact has also been acknowledged by the TFC. Second Gross Enterprises PLC who were awarded the license boasted on public television that they know what the public wants which they identified as quiz and games shows, soap operas, sport and cartoons; a notion they claim TFC agreed with in making their choice. Third suspicion with regard to the Director of Gross Enterprises and the Chairman of the TFC are close golf buddies and so they could have conspired to deny the license to GMTV. Legal Considerations The first legal provision to be considered is the Independent Broadcasting Act or; the Act, under which the TFC is set up. Section 2 of the Act states: "It shall be the duty of the Television Franchise Commission to discharge its functions under the Act in the manner which it considers is best calculated to ensure the provision of such services which are of high quality and offer a wide range of programmers calculated to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests." This section of the Act clearly gives the TFC the responsibility to discharge its functions provided that its acts are within the parameters of encouraging high quality output by the television stations it authorizes to operate and whose operations it supervises to ensure quality assurance. The first premise The TFC called for bids, considered those bids and made a decision on whom to award the license to; it was legally within its rights to do so. TFC had given the licence to another bidder and it had based its premise according to Section 4(2) of Independent Broadcasting Act which says that: “The Television Franchise Commission may award the licence to an applicant who has not submitted the highest bid where it appears to the Television Franchise Commission that the quality of the service proposed by that applicant is substantially higher than the quality of the service proposed by the applicant who has submitted the highest bid." The second premise The second issue raised concerned the fact that Gross Enterprises PLC went out and boasted on public TV that they were aware of what the public wanted and that the TFC agreed with them on that. This again is not ample ground for appeal and cannot work in court. It is quite clear that the only premise on which the case can be build up on this matter is that Gross Enterprises may have had prior knowledge of the requirements of the TFC criteria of selection thus rendering the process lopsided and unfair. Well once again there is no ample ground on which the case can hinge. The weaknesses of this argument are two-fold. First, the said press conference happened after the selection process was complete and not before. That makes a world of difference. This kind of evidence is at best analogical and at worst anecdotal.3. It is very rare that any judge would accept this evidence as an analogy in which known thing logically builds up to another. This is further weakened by the fact that the evidence claimed here builds backwards --------------------- 3 Clarkson K. W. et al. (1989) Business Law: Text and Cases (Wests Business Law) London: Longman Publishers. pp18-19 to a past event, in other words the press release leads us to a conclusion about the TFC selection rather than building up to some future event. This is too circumstantial to be acceptable. The Third Premise The third issue concerns the suspicions about possible collusion between the chairman of the TFC and the Director of Gross Enterprises. This particular one is a stronger issue than the other two. It is admissible provided that documentary evidence and consistent eyewitness accounts can be produced. This suggests a conflict of interest that quite clearly has a bearing on the decision that was made. The extent of the compromise of the selection process can be fairly and logically assumed in a case like this. In fact, though the first premise raised and which has been analysed above is quite weak on its own, combined with this third premise it does have some weight. Conclusion Thus a lot of information that too documentary evidence has to be gathered by GMTV to proceed further in the case. References 1. Allen, M.J. & Brian Thompson. Cases and Materials on Constitutional and Administrative Law, 8th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005). 2. Allison, J.W.F. The English Historical Constitution: Continuity, Change and European Effects (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). 3. Barnett, Hilaire. Constitutional & Administrative Law, 6th ed. (London: Routledge-Cavendish, 2006). 4. Prof A. Bradley, Prof K. Ewing, Constitutional and Administrative Law, Longman; 13 edition (10 Sep 2002). 5. Dickson, B. & Carmichael, P, (eds.) The House of Lords: its parliamentary and judicial roles 1999. 6. Sellick, J. (2007). Constitutional and Administrative Law, London: Hodder Arnold, pp. 20 7. Loveland, I. (2006). Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and Human Rights, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 21-93. 8. Turpin, C. & Tomkins, A. (2007). British Government and the Constitution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p.40. 9. Martin, J & Turner, C. (2008). Constitutional & Administrative Law, London: Hodder Education. 10. Taylor, C. (2009). Constitutional and Administrative Law, Harlow: Pearson Longman. 11. Hartley, T.C. The foundations of European Community law: an introduction to constitutional and administrative law of the European Community 6th ed. 2007. 12. Bradley, A.W. and Ewing, K.D., Constitutional and Administrative Law (Pearson, 2003), ISBN 0-582-43807-1. 13. Hogan, Greer, Constitutional and Administrative Law in a Nutshell, 7th ed.. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2005. 14. King, Anthony. The British Constitution, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. 15. Papworth, Neil. Constitutional and Administrative Law, 4th ed, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Read More