Lesson 1: Constitutional and Administrative Law for Postgraduates

SUMMARY

• Administrative law = control of governmental power (Wade); rule of law retail.
• Sources: Constitution (ss 23, 134), enabling statutes, received common law, case law.
• Controls: internal (hierarchy, audit) and external (Parliament, Ombudsman, ACC, courts).

SUMMARY

• Delegated legislation: frame in the Act, detail in instruments; gains speed and expertise, risks scrutiny deficit.
• Ultra vires: substantive (outside power, improper purpose, wrong considerations) and procedural (mandatory steps skipped).
• Non-delegation: no sub-delegation without authority; no abdication; constitution as outer limit.

SUMMARY

• Discretion = lawful choice; controls: right holder, no fettering, proper purpose, relevant considerations, rationality.
• Reasons and records make accountability real.

Case Study: Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation 1 KB 223 (CA)

Facts. A statute let local authorities licence Sunday cinema openings "subject to such conditions as the authority think fit". Wednesbury Corporation licensed the cinema but imposed the condition that no child under fifteen be admitted on Sundays. The cinema argued the condition was unreasonable and beyond the power. Decision. The Court of Appeal upheld the condition, and Lord Greene MR stated the enduring standard: a court cannot quash merely because it disagrees; it may interfere only if the authority took into account what it should not, ignored what it should, or reached a conclusion so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it. Principle. Review is not appeal: the merits belong to the authority, the boundaries to the court, and only decisions outside the range of reasonable responses fall. Why it matters. "Wednesbury unreasonableness" is the vocabulary of irrationality across the Commonwealth, including Sierra Leone; proportionality offers a more structured, intense scrutiny where rights are at stake, and the relationship between the two standards is a favourite essay question.

SUMMARY

• GCHQ: prerogative reviewable (subject-matter test); legitimate expectation from practice; national security prevailed on facts.
• Diplock trilogy: illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety; proportionality emerging fourth.
• Wednesbury: interfere only when no reasonable authority could so decide; review is not appeal.

Case Study: Ridge v Baldwin AC 40 (HL)

Facts. Charles Ridge, Chief Constable of Brighton, was prosecuted for conspiracy and acquitted, though the trial judge criticised his leadership. The police authority summarily dismissed him without notifying him of the charge against him or hearing him. Dismissal destroyed his pension rights. Issue. Did the authority owe him a hearing before dismissal, or was natural justice confined to bodies acting "judicially"?

Decision. The House of Lords held the dismissal void: the duty to act fairly attaches to administrative decisions affecting rights and livelihoods, not only to court-like proceedings. The old restriction of natural justice to "judicial" functions was swept away. Principle. Fair hearing is a general requirement of lawful administration; its content flexes with context (what fairness requires varies), but its existence does not.

Why it matters in Sierra Leone. It underwrites the fair-hearing dimension of s 23 in the administrative sphere: dismissals, licence revocations and disciplinary decisions without notice and hearing invite certiorari.

SUMMARY

• Nemo iudex: actual bias; automatic disqualification (Dimes; Pinochet); apparent bias (fair-minded observer, Porter v Magill).
• Audi alteram partem: notice plus opportunity to be heard.
• Ridge v Baldwin: natural justice applies to administrative action; content contextual.

Case Study: R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex p Coughlan QB 213 (CA)

Facts. Miss Coughlan, gravely disabled in a road accident, was moved by the health authority to Mardon House, a purpose-built NHS facility, on the express assurance that it would be her home for life. Years later the authority decided to close Mardon House and transfer her to local authority care. Issue. Could the authority resile from its clear promise? Decision. The Court of Appeal held the closure unlawful: the promise had generated a substantive legitimate expectation, and frustrating it, where the expectation was induced by a specific promise to a small class and reliance was profound, was so unfair as to amount to an abuse of power; the court itself weighs the fairness of departure in such cases, rather than deferring on Wednesbury terms.

Principle. Clear promises to identifiable persons can bind public authorities substantively; abuse of power is the controlling concept. Why it matters in Sierra Leone. Government assurances, to investors, to communities affected by projects, to public servants, are enforceable in principle; the doctrine disciplines the gap between official word and official deed that anti-corruption scholarship, including the tutor’s, identifies as corrosive of trust.