The Local Government Transport Act 2000 - Essay Example

Administrative Law – Work The (Fictitious) Local Government Transport Act 2000 Introduction: In the United Kingdom there is an increased recognition by the courts of the individual interests of persons likely to be aggrieved by the decisions of the administrative bodies. This view is being taken by the democratic government consequent to their acceptance of the principles of good administration which implies that any decision by the administration needs to be taken only after adopting fair procedures that have the effect of explaining the reasons to the individuals or an association of persons why such a decision is being taken. Especially with the development of the state as an industrial welfare one and with the government extending its monitoring systems to almost all areas of socio-cultural and economic life, the judicial review of the decisions taken by the administration has become an absolute necessity to support the standpoint of the government to recognize the individual interests. During the last 15 years of so, the courts basing their courses on this broad-based approach of the government have also delivered their decisions in various cases recognizing the individual interests. Administrative Law: The cited instance of the issue connected with the granting of more number of taxi licenses against the number of licenses announced as will be issued is a case falling under the purview o the Administrative Law which implies the exercise of the power of the government delegated to the local administrative bodies by the legislature through various statutes. This power enables the administrative bodies to follow the prescribed procedure regarding the exercise of such powers vested on them during any decision making process. “The administrative law emanates from the general rule of law that all government officials and public authorities are subject to the regular law of the land as administered by the courts”1. This process has the following repercussions: The officials and public authorities can exercise only those powers specifically vested on them by the legislature and this is to ensure that they are not exceeding their authority in making any decision in the administrative matters. The second premise is that even when the authorities are acting within the scope of authority the courts will have the power to intervene to ensure that follow the proper procedures already laid down in this connection. It is also imperative that such authorities take into account the interests of the individuals before arriving at any decision. The public officials while adopting the procedures for decision making under their powers should consider how the decisions need to be made and what actually need to be decided. Similarly the fairness in arriving at the decision also matters. The degree of fairness depends basically on the following key points: There need to be some degree of procedural fairness while making the decisions There is a need to take in to account the kinds of interests that is at stake at the stage of decision making There is need to be familiar with the statutory context that the decision relates to and There is the need to consider what the legislature intended to deliver at the particular circumstance. Case of ‘Walford Local Authority Transport Committee’: Based on the above general theories relating to the administrative law and procedures the cited case of ‘Walford Local Authority Transport Committee’ can be discussed: The facts of the cited instance are similar to the facts of the Reg. v. Liverpool Corporation, Ex. parte Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators Association2. Liverpool Corporation had the duty of licensing the number of taxis which they thought fit, and for some years at certain numbers which was subsequently increased. “A number of taxi cab owners challenged a decision of the Council to increase the numbers of hackney cabs operating in the city. At a public meeting with the council prior to the decision, the chairman had given a public undertaking that the numbers of hackney cabs would not be increased until the proposed legislation, which included provisions for controlling private hire vehicles, had been enacted by Parliament”3 The association of licence holders applied to the court for an order of prohibition. Though the application for prohibition was rejected by the Divisional Court, the Court of Appeal granted an order of prohibition. The court prescribed the hearing of any representations of the persons interested in the granting of the licenses, including the appellant association. The Court of Appeal held that the applicants were “justifiably aggrieved by the council’s unfair conduct of increasing the number of licenses without giving an opportunity to the interested parties to represent their opinion. It may be noted that the Court of Appeal ordered the corporation to follow a fair procedure by hearing the interested parties before its decision to increase the number of licenses. Based on the decision of the above case Ivor Carr the president of the local taxi-drivers’ association can be advised as below: As has been held in Birkdale District Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. Southport Corporation4 “a well-established principle of law, that if a person or public body is entrusted by the legislature with certain powers and duties expressly or impliedly for public purposes, those persons or bodies cannot divest themselves of these powers and duties. They cannot enter into any contract or take any action incompatible with the due exercise of their powers or the discharge of their duties. But that principle does not mean that a corporation can give an undertaking and break it as they please. So long as the performance of the undertaking is compatible with their public duty, they must honour it." Based on the decision in this case Carr can proceed with an application to stall the grant of the increased licenses. Moreover the fact that Ralph Smart the owner of garages has cast his vote in favour of the decision to support the increase in the licenses doesn’t matter with respect to the claim by Carr as he representing his association is also one of the parties interested in the decision to increase the number of licenses as the taxi owners will be directly be affected by the decision of the council to increase the licenses. Carr can make the application for stalling the decision to increase the licenses on the ground that the council has acted in an unfair manner in deciding so without giving an opportunity for the association to present their case. Case of ‘Cycling Mass’: In the decision relating to this case Roskill L.J. observed (at p. 310):  "It is for the council and not for this court to determine what the future policy should be in relation to the number of taxi licences which are to be issued in the City of Liverpool. It is not for this court to consider population growths or falls or the extent of the demand for taxis within or without the city . . . All those are matters for the council. This court is concerned to see that whatever policy the corporation adopts is adopted after due and fair regard to all the conflicting interests. The power of the court to intervene is not limited, as once was thought, to those cases where the function in question is judicial or quasi-judicial. The modern cases show that this court will intervene more widely than in the past. Even where the function is said to be administrative, the court will not hesitate to intervene in a suitable case if it is necessary in order to secure fairness." The main idea behind the intervention of the court is to see whether a due and fair process had been undertaken before any decision is taken with respect to the issue of further licenses. It is important that the decision maker should take into account the views of conflicting parties before deciding. Here the question is to decide whether the association ‘cycling mass’ is directly connected with the process of the issue of fresh taxi licenses and whether by the issue of additional licenses the interests of the association is really affected. It is not possible to establish any direct nexus between the issue of additional taxi licenses and the mass cycling organization. Moreover the plying of additional taxis alone will not hurt the interests of this association. There are so many other factors and reasons to bring harm to the members of this association. Because of these reasons it can be said that the ‘mass cycling’ organization can not be treated as a party whose interest will be jeopardized because of the increase in the number of licenses and hence there cannot be any claim by this association. 2. Case of R (on the application of Hamid Ali Husain) v Asylum Support Adjudicator [2001] EWHC Admin 852; [2002] ACD 10/Case of Begum (Runa) v Tower Hamlets LBC [2002] EWCA Civ 239; [2002] 1 WLR 2491 and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights In order to understand the decisions of the English Courts on the question of what constitutes “civil rights’ within the meaning of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights it is necessary to have a plain reading of the provisions of Article 6. ARTICLE 6 (1) reads: 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly by the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. Case of R (on the application of Hamid Ali Husain) v Asylum Support Adjudicator5 deals with a judicial review of the following questions: Whether the support for the Asylum seekers under Immigration & Asylum Act 1999 for those entitled is a civil right within the meaning of the Article 6 of the European Convention on Human rights Whether the office of the Asylum support Adjudicators meet the requirements of Article 6 for qualifying as independent Tribunal established by law. Both the questions were decided in affirmative by the court of appeal. Generally Article 6 has been interpreted to have included an implied right of access to the court6. However it must be noted that this right is not an absolute one but limited by the state. It must also be noted that while Article 6 covers the issues relating to asylum seekers’ detention, mistreatment, removal of support7 or removal of their children it does not interfere with the decision of the state whether to grant asylum to any person or not8. The courts went on further to decide that when there is a right of appeal provided to the aggrieved person it is also the responsibility of the state to ensure that such aggrieved party enjoys the fundamental right of appeal and provide for the necessary mechanism and authority for the people to prefer an appeal. It is also important that the government while regulating the right should ensure that the right of any aggrieved person is not restricted as it will tantamount to impairing the very essence of the right.9 In the case of asylum seekers there are is no authority beyond the asylum support adjudicators. Hence it can be implied that when a person is entitle for support under the Immigration & Asylum Act 1999 he automatically possess a civil right and when any one is aggrieved in the process of the provisions of such support then his or her application to the Asylum Support Adjudicators can be considered as an appeal and the Adjudicators can be regarded as the independent and impartial tribunal established under law. The case of Begum (Runa) v Tower Hamlet LBC 10 attempts to present a clear connection between the concept of civil rights under article 6 (1) and the constitution of an independent and impartial tribunal under the same clause. It may be appreciated that the intensity of the need to have an independent tribunal depends on the scope of the interpretation of ‘civil rights’. When the interpretation of what constitutes the civil right is not having a wider scope then the need to have a judicial review by an independent tribunal is more; this is obvious. On the contrary when the scope of civil rights is wide enough then there can be a very flexible approach to decide the circumstances under which the review by the tribunal is required. As decided by Lord Hoffmann, R (Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions11 “once it is accepted that "full jurisdiction" means "full jurisdiction to deal with the case as the nature of the decision requires. It must also be accepted that the decisions whether a right recognised in domestic law is also a "civil right" and whether the procedure provided to determine that right meets the requirements of article 6 are very closely bound up with each other.” In the present case of Begum (Runa) v. Tower Hamlets LBC it has been decided that while applying the provisions of article 6 to different administrative decisions it is important that a reasonable degree of flexibility is ensured to finding out whether: The requirements of the provisions of article 6 are met and That the satisfaction of the requirements of article 6 is achieved by a ‘composite approach’. This approach is characterized by the decision being made by an independent administrative decision maker and such decision is later on reviewed by an appellate authority constituted within the purview of article 6 (1) only for the purpose of deciding any question of law. The appeal may also relate to any classic judicial review grounds. It is also important to note that the extent of satisfaction of the requirements of article 6 (1) depends on the factors like: Subject matter of the decision against which the appeal is being made The manner of arriving at the original decision appealed against and The real content of the dispute. The authority for the above discussion is also found in the decision in the case of Bryan v United Kingdom.12 Bibliography: Adminstrative Law http://outlines.law.uvic.ca/courses/adminlaw/ADMIN.DOC Swarb co UK ‘Administrative – 1970 – 1979’ http://www.swarb.co.uk/lisc/Admin19701979.php Read More