Administrative Law Doctrine - Essay Example

Administrative Law Doctrine about the Standing of ‘Public Interest’ Groups Introduction – The issue of public standing The standing in law refers to the term for each party to have the ability to demonstrate the connection of law or any action challenged sufficiently in order to support the said party’s participation in a given case (A. V. Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, E. C. S. Wade (ed.), 10th ed. (Macmillan, 1959) (hereafter Introduction), pp. 188. Standing law is in other words; set of rules aiming to determine if the person who starts a case for a legal proceeding is in fact the one supposed to do so. This paper, therefore, outlines and gives a clear understanding of the administrative law doctrine about the standing of the public interest groups in relation to the review of judicially. The write ups also analyze the optimal balance between legal and political constitutionalism in relation to the standing of the public interests. The public interests involves the enforcement of pubic rights which arises out of the legislation of policies requiring the public bodies to administer and conduct all the activities relating to the safety of the public. This is in order to have a healthy environment for all citizens where constitution is the only defending tool to their rights. In many judicial platforms, the Attorney General’s docket is where the rights of the public are mostly affected as it is the proper plaintiff for the matter. This is because the Attorney General can grant a fiat to an individual whereby, the said individuals are granted the permission to use his name and standing. This is in an effort to seek action of the public interest as a “relator” in the case. In the real sense, in the height of bringing an application for the review by the judiciary, an organization or an individual must show the abilities to abide the standing. The standing requires that the organization or the individuals must have the interests which are sufficient in relation to the application. In some cases by ague, the court’s applicant might be an individual who is directly affected by the decision of the public authority or any other measures. This causes an impact on the individual and moreover, has implications for the rest of the public. In such circumstances, therefore, different groups including representational groups, pressure groups or interest groups present an application for the judicial review. For many years, UK courts had been open to receive such applications and there were interpretations of the requirements for the “sufficient interest” in a liberal approach. Some of the groups which had presented their applications include the Child Poverty Action group, Joint Council for Welfare of Immigrants, The Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the World Development movement (T. Hickman, ‘In Defence of the Legal Constitution’ (2005) 55 University of Toronto Law Journal 981 pg 16). The acceptance of the corresponding applications from the groups has aroused the interests in controlling the legal stakeholders although no individual was affected by any decision made. The willingness of the courts to hear such cases had become sometimes controversial and there were arguments that public interest group must be using the proceedings of the court. This is in order to obtain a relatively inexpensive publicity in their fight to get justice. In the factual case, the courts have continued to uphold the rule of law as they underline the imperatives. The Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland listed the general valid points about standing which ensured the possible illegality of the government does not escape the scrutiny. The points included the relative concept of the standing to deploy the content of the case according to the public interests. The other point was that the court will be more ready for the issue before it that carries the greater amount of the importance to the public. In that, the court should hold that the applicant of the case withholds the standing as a necessity. Another point outlined by the Court of Appeal of North Ireland was that the court focuses more on the existence of the default on the public authority side than the interests of the applicants’ side or on the involvement of the personal rights. Other crucial point that was focused by the courts was the absence of another challenger to respond and was classified as a significant factor in order to make the concerns is not lest unexamined The Supreme Court of Canada developed “the Standing trilogy” which was the concept of determining the public interest in the following constitutional cases. The cases included Thorson v. Canada (Attorney General), McNeil v Nova Scotia Board of Censors, and Minister of Justice v. Borowski. In the case of Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), the trilogy was concluded in relations to the public interest standing as below: “It has been seen that when public interest standing is sought, consideration must be given to three aspects. First, is there a serious issue raised as to the invalidity of legislation in question? Second, has it been established that the plaintiff is directly affected by the legislation or if not does the plaintiff have a genuine interest in its validity? Third, is there another reasonable and effective way to bring the issue before the court?” The public interest standing can also be available in non-constitutional cases as found in the case (MacCormick, 1994-pg 11). There are three standing requirements which include injury, causation and redress-ability. In injury requirement, the plaintiff must have imminently suffered injury which is an invasion of interests being protected legally in concrete and in particular manner. The injury can also be identified as economic or non-economic (H. L. A. Hart, The Concept of Law, 2nd revised ed. (Clarendon Press, 1997-Overview of Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555(1992)) The standing requirement of causation articulates that there must be a connection between the conduct and the injury in order to have a fairly traceable injury for the defendant to challenge the action. In redress ability, the court can redress the injury in providing a favorable decision (Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 1992). In addition, there are various prudential limitations of the standing principles. The limitations included the prohibition of the grievances which were generalized, the prohibition of the third party standing and the zone of interests test. In prohibition of generalized grievances, a plaintiff is inhibited to sue where an injury is shared with many people who are undifferentiated. This can complicate the matter since the public interests might not be seen due to the fact that, the complainant can’t be able to differentiate the people involved in the case. The prohibition of the third party standing, a party cannot raise the claims of a third party that are outside the court hearings in an effort to assert his or her own rights. But there exists exceptions in a case where a third party has interests which are interchangeable economically with the injured party (Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 2000). Another limitation of standing principle is the zone of interest test. There are two tests being practiced by the United States Supreme Court for the interests of all parties. They included the zone of interests and the zone of injury. The zone of interests is arguably protected by the provision of the statue and the constitution. The zone of injury was expected to be addressed under the statute (Federal Election Commission v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998). In most cases, however, the sought statutory remedy specifies the class of the people seeking the remedy. Therefore, the public interests litigation as commonly rose in the standing provision of the statutes. In that case, there is administrative law which enables the individual parties to challenge the actions or decisions of the government (Shapiro, 1994, pg 10-11) What is the proper role of the court? In the exercise of reviewing the judiciary, the engagements of the court in their functionality is confined in determination if the public authority acted according to the law in times of its decision making. This considers whether the courts have acted within the powers they are conferred upon it (Carr, 1941-more detail in reference). The judicial review was brought under the administrative decision of the Commonwealth disputes (Judicial Review) Act of 1977 (Cth). In the judicial review, a court may make a declaration, order different parties to do or not specified things. It may also order the decision to be quashed. They may order the decisions to be referred back to the original maker of decision for the reconsiderations. According to Griffith (1979), the constitution presents a description of equilibrium whether written or unwritten. This acts as a guideline to the courts to have a fair play to all, either red or blue in the other side (Barker, 1997). The red and blue arose when one group is favored. For example, in United States, a republican falls in the re part while the democrat falls in the other side of political scene where the republican receives the support of the state to win. Tomkins (2005) introduced the metaphor of green light and red light theories which aimed at giving the layers and other judicial staff the administrative ideas of thinking about their academic practitioners in their competence of schools of thought. The metaphor, a review of Hawlow and Rawlings’, gave a notion of two colors of opinion to multiply it into four. The red and green light theorists had views which contrasted on the law, state, control and on liberty. The red-light theories believed that that the administrative state needs to be checked by law. It also stated that the law is autonomous to and superior over the politics. The arguments continues to give an opinion that, the preferred technique of checking the government activities on standing is only through the courts to be adjudicated through the rules set. The theory of administrative law also is said to lie on the theory of states and Laski (1925), states that the constitutional law is unintelligible with the exemption of the expression of the economic system. His statements meant that the government machinery was an expression of the society of its operations and everyone must be understood in context of the other. The conclusions of Carol (2002-Conclusion, Pg 16) shows that, the political and constitutional rhetoric has put the courts under pressure in their spite to fight for democracy since different campaigning groups gains entry to the legal process using the metaphor of the courtroom as a political surrogate. Conclusion In conclusion, the roles of the court must work on their jurisdiction and should be above the government sector for the standing order to be prevailed. This means that the rule of law must be exercised and be reviewed for the judicial system to have the powers required to stand by the public interests. The judicial review will give the courts a notion to make a declaration and order different parties to do or not to do the specified things. The review will help to have a status where a decision can be quashed. The court may order the decisions to be referred back to the original maker or the one who ruled the case of the decision for the reconsiderations. References A. Tomkins, Public Law (OUP, 2003), particularly chapters 1, 5 and 6  A. V. Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, E. C. S. Wade (ed.),10th ed. (Macmillan, 1959) (hereafter Introduction), pp. 187–196. C. Carr, Concerning English Administrative Law (Oxford University Press, 1941), pp. 10–11. Carol Harlow. Modern Law Review: Public Law and Popular Justice, Volume 65, No. 1 January, 2002 H. L. A. Hart, The Concept of Law, 2nd revised ed. (Clarendon Press, 1997) H. Laski, A Grammar of Politics (Allen and Unwin, 1925), p. 578. J. A. G. Griffith The Political Constitution (1979) 42 Modern Law Review, p. 1  M. Shapiro, ‘Administrative law unbounded’ (2001) 8 Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 369 N. MacCormick, Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory (Clarendon Press, 1994). R. Barker, Political Ideas in Modern Britain, 2nd edn (Methuen, 1997), pp. 14, 18 T. Hickman, ‘In Defence of the Legal Constitution’ (2005) 55 University of Toronto Law Journal, p. 981 Read More