Alconbury [2001] UKHL 23; [2001] 2 WLR 1389; [2001] 2 All ER 929

• These were 3 cases where the secretary of state granted planning permission himself under various statutes, and local protesters argued that this breached their convention rights to have civil rights and obligations determined by an independent and impartial tribunal, under Article 6 of ECHR.

• HL said these powers were subject to judicial review which would be by an independent tribunal so that the actual powers conferred on the secretary of state were NOT in breach of Article 6 ECHR. 

Lord Slynn

• He says that the time has come to recognise proportionality as a principle of English administrative law, with or without the HRA. 

• “Trying to keep the Wednesbury principle and proportionality in separate compartments seems to me to be unnecessary and confusing.” 

• These were 3 cases where the secretary of state granted planning permission himself under various acts and local protesters, argued that this breached their convention rights to have civil rights and obligations determined by an independent and impartial tribunal, under Article 6 of ECHR.

• Says that the Home Secretary is not really usurping a judicial function since it is for the executive to decide what is in the interests of the country regarding planning restrictions. The common law has developed judicial review of such executive actions, so that ultimately an “independent tribunal” will have control.

• He also reiterates that mistake of fact can be a grounds for judicial review.

Lord Clyde

• He declines to comment on the precise scope of judicial review.  

RELATED CASES

• Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation

• R (ABCIFER) v Defence Secretary