The Student Room Group

Rules of Substance and Procedure

I'm just in the process of taking on an essay for environmental law, the title is:

“Although the increasing amount of environmental information in the public domain has made it easier for both individuals and environmental interest groups to play a role in protecting the environment, rules of substance and procedure still hamper their abilities to use the law as they perhaps should be able to do.”
Discuss.

It's the words i've put in bold that i'm not sure about. I am intending on focusing the essay on cases of judicial review where groups such as Green Peace have not been allowed standing due to lack of sufficient interest. I'm just not certain by what it means by rules of substance.

How would you interpret this?
Reply 1
JimmyJBreeze
I'm just in the process of taking on an essay for environmental law, the title is:

“Although the increasing amount of environmental information in the public domain has made it easier for both individuals and environmental interest groups to play a role in protecting the environment, rules of substance and procedure still hamper their abilities to use the law as they perhaps should be able to do.”
Discuss.

How would you interpret this?


Well, in the context of judicial review, rules of 'procedure' probably refer to the requirements for the plaintiff to have locus standi and to satisfy various time restrictions. While rules of 'substance' would refer to the defendant body's amenability to review (i.e. whether it has a public function and whether that function was engaged) and the grounds for review themselves (illegality, unreasonableness and procedural impropriety).
Thus, your essay would (according to your approach) basically discuss how rules of substance and procedure do hamper legal actions and the converse. Possible (though very general) reasons in support of the former argument include: time limits disadvantaging the scope for bringing actions; and the Wednesbury test permitting only very narrow interpretations of 'unreasonableness' , especially vis-à-vis the open-textured provisions of the HRA (which also concern public bodies, but are only engaged with regard to human rights). Reasons substantiating the latter argument include: how the relatively new criterion for locus standi of 'public interest' allows a far greater range of individuals to bring actions in the courts, thus generally promoting the protection of the environment (?).
Hope it helps.