[charli159]

Could someone help me please....

what has the car blowing up got to do with JR???Is it a ground for JR and if so what!! The question is 4 a seminar ...



Governmental policy to support stem cell research has resulted in the adoption of opposing views by groups within society who are either passionately in favour of the potential medical and scientific benefits or passionately opposed on the grounds of their religious and morally related beliefs.

Pro Embryo is a group committed to preventing further scientific experimentation on embryos. The group is based in London and led by Chris and Nazeem.

BioMedic is a company created by statute - the Emryology Act 2006 ( a fictitious measure). It is predominantly engaged in scientific research into embryos. The company is based in Wulfrun

Two months ago an incendiary device was placed under the car of one of the Directors of Bio Medic. It blew up causing damage to property. The police are currently investigating the incident but have few leads other than a description of three men seen running away from the area shortly before the device blew up.

Question 1.
As a public law company the duties and powers of Bio Medic are defined by statute. Section 2 of the Embryology Act states that all experiments, prior to commencement, conducted by Bio Medic, must receive the approval of a committee of the House of Lords. It comes to light that experimentation has been conducted without that prior approval.

Explain whether the decision could be challenged and on what basis.

(25 marks)

[squid]

If someone blows up a car, in protest of research it shows that it is highly opposed and therefore...? Not that I have a clue about law, but it seems quite obvious that if someone is willing to endanger life to get their point across, the research is worth reconsidering?

[charli159]

Could the decision be challenged on illegality?Irrationality?or Procedural Improprietry? Or all 3 ????

[SofinaaBabess]

Do you mean Judicial Precedent?

[charli159]

No, its defo Judicial Review.

i know there are 3 grounds for JR: Ultra Vires, Natural Justice and the Human Rights Act 1998 but i don't know which are relevant to the scenario!!!

[Guvnor]

Originally Posted by charli159

No, its defo Judicial Review.

i know there are 3 grounds for JR: Ultra Vires, Natural Justice and the Human Rights Act 1998 but i don't know which are relevant to the scenario!!!

First of all, its Ultra Vires as its acting outside its powers, you can look into others as well, but I am sure its Ultra Vires.

[jacketpotato]

Originally Posted by charli159

No, its defo Judicial Review.

i know there are 3 grounds for JR: Ultra Vires, Natural Justice and the Human Rights Act 1998 but i don't know which are relevant to the scenario!!!

nonononononononononononononononononononononono, these are not the grounds for JR.

ultra vires is a ground.
Natural Justice and the HRA1998 are NOT grounds for JR, though they may be relevant in considering other grounds. The courts will not strike down an administrative act because it conflicts with natural justice or because it conflicts with the HRA1998.

The other grounds include irrationality, illegality (this is very closely related to ultra vires), and fairness (this really includes multiple things e.g. no fair hearing).

Before you attempt a question on JR, you need to get the requirements clear in your head.
1) An act open to JR at all?
2) What are the requirements for standing?
3) The grounds. You need to get yourself a list of the grounds (there are multiple ways of conceptualising them, choose one which works for you).

In a problem Q, you first consider whether the act is open to review at all, and then you consider whether the applicant has standing. These are often obviously met, if they are you simply say that they are met.

In the grounds bit, you lead each paragraph something like: "The decision may be struck down on the grounds of irrationality. The requirement for this was laid down in Wednesbury, where it was held to mean .....", and then discuss whether it is met in this case using appropriate cases to illustrate

The car isn't a ground in itself, but it may be a relevant consideration when you consider the other grounds: e.g. the fact that people are blowing stuff up may help show that a decision is completely unreasonable. Though, I think the courts would be unlikely to take much notice of the car really; they don't give heavy weight to blackmail.

[charli159]

thank you jacket potato i get it now!

i have said in my Sem prep that the grounds would be Irrationality and/or Procedural . Would u agree with this?

[charli159]

Originally Posted by jacketpotato

nonononononononononononononononononononononono, these are not the grounds for JR.

ultra vires is a ground.
Natural Justice and the HRA1998 are NOT grounds for JR, though they may be relevant in considering other grounds. The courts will not strike down an administrative act because it conflicts with natural justice or because it conflicts with the HRA1998.

The other grounds include irrationality, illegality (this is very closely related to ultra vires), and fairness (this really includes multiple things e.g. no fair hearing).

Before you attempt a question on JR, you need to get the requirements clear in your head.
1) An act open to JR at all?
2) What are the requirements for standing?
3) The grounds. You need to get yourself a list of the grounds (there are multiple ways of conceptualising them, choose one which works for you).

In a problem Q, you first consider whether the act is open to review at all, and then you consider whether the applicant has standing. These are often obviously met, if they are you simply say that they are met.

In the grounds bit, you lead each paragraph something like: "The decision may be struck down on the grounds of irrationality. The requirement for this was laid down in Wednesbury, where it was held to mean .....", and then discuss whether it is met in this case using appropriate cases to illustrate

The car isn't a ground in itself, but it may be a relevant consideration when you consider the other grounds: e.g. the fact that people are blowing stuff up may help show that a decision is completely unreasonable. Though, I think the courts would be unlikely to take much notice of the car really; they don't give heavy weight to blackmail.

thank you jacket potato i get it now!

i have said in my Sem prep that the grounds would be Irrationality and/or Procedural . Would u agree with this?

[rizzy786]

Lol you liar, This question is not for your seminar, it is for your end of module assignment, weighing 60% of the total mark for the module!

[Crazy Mongoose]

That is worth 60% of his module? But there is only one issue in it....