Wednesbury unreasonableness

[pleasuredome]

In English law, Wednesbury unreasonableness is unreasonableness of an administrative decision that is so extreme that courts may intervene to correct it. The term derives from Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223, where the court stated that it would only intervene to correct a bad administrative decision on grounds of its unreasonableness if the decision was, as articulated in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (the GCHQ case) [1985] AC 374, 410 per Lord Diplock, "So outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wednesbury_unreasonableness

Pensioner fined for littering after police knock cigarette from his hand while arresting shoplifters (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1092623/Pensioner-fined-littering-police-knock-cigarette-hand-arresting-shoplifters.html)

could the pensioner use this Wednesbury principle in this situation?

[micklemus]

Doubtful, assuming (as I think would be the case) the power to fine is there and its a strict liability offence. Plus the High Court hearing this as a judicial review could in any event, when deciding whether to give permission to proceed with the judicial review, conclude that its too trivial.

[pleasuredome]

Doubtful, assuming (as I think would be the case) the power to fine is there and its a strict liability offence. Plus the High Court hearing this as a judicial review could in any event, when deciding whether to give permission to proceed with the judicial review, conclude that its too trivial.

by strict, you mean they 'have to' rather than 'may', if so then i think you're right.

[micklemus]

Sorry for not responding sooner.

By strict liability, I mean an offence where the act of doing something is an offence in itself, eg dropping litter or whatever it is. The fact you've done it means you've contravened the rule, with no consideration given for your intention at the time etc. With many offences the state of mind is relevant, eg theft (in UK) requires proof of intention to permanently deprive. However, if this local bye law says words to the effect that dropping litter is an offence (no consideration for whether it was an accident, a consequence of someone else's actions etc) then that would be a strict liability offence. There is then, on the face of it, no discretion available to the person administering the fine or whatever it happens to be.

If there is no discretion available in respect of the administrative decision then by definition there can be no prospect of judicial review.

[cacadores]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wednesbury_unreasonableness

Pensioner fined for littering after police knock cigarette from his hand while arresting shoplifters (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1092623/Pensioner-fined-littering-police-knock-cigarette-hand-arresting-shoplifters.html)

could the pensioner use this Wednesbury principle in this situation?That's terrible.
I would write a 'recommended' letter to the addess on the notification, but written personally to the name of their Chief Executive (or whoever the top bod is) which clearly states I reject their accusation, it being libellous and oppressive. In it, I would formally claim from them the cost of the stamp and the envelope and give them 14 days to pay (with a copy of the receipt for the stamp and envelope and photocopies from the post office). Then, if I have time, I would further point out that I will keep a full schedule of costs for my trouble and will press for full costs and exemplary damages in court. Keep the wording in plain English (not pseudo-legal gobbledegook), but keep it formal, plain and short. With no spelling mistakes and simple, subject-verb-object sentences as far as possible (makes you sound sane!)

I would then wait for any court action with a certain degree of confidence, seeing as how it's them as has to come up with the proof, not me. And one man's word against another's is not enough, end of story. If I can get a witness to give me his or her name and address, then I'd state I had a witness in my letter (but not his name) as then I can't lose.

The point about the threat to press for compensation in court, even for the cost of the stamp, is that the cost of the stamp would highlight the incompetance of whichever official is pressing for the case and should be enough to get the case quietly dropped. The point of writing to the top bod, is to involve him (or her). If he gets involved, he might get called as a witness and that's not something he'll want to do. The letter gives them a reason to drop the case. Last time I did something like this (over a false parking fine) I even got a big red FINAL WARNING letter. I just upped the anti and wrote back charging them the current account rate interest on the costs of the unpaid stamp and envelope, plus the new stamp with a copy of a recept for the stamp and a demand for a reply to my previous letter (identified only by the date, not the content). And I asked them to explain the reason for the FINAL WARNING notice as they already have my denial (for which I have proof - the 'recommended' letter) and that unless I receive an apology in writing within 10 days they may face an exemplary damages claim for oppressive behaviour.

Anyway, they gave up. I never did get the cost of the stamp back, though.:confused:

[stickwhistler]

Doubtful, assuming (as I think would be the case) the power to fine is there and its a strict liability offence. Plus the High Court hearing this as a judicial review could in any event, when deciding whether to give permission to proceed with the judicial review, conclude that its too trivial.

Which goes to show that:

If you cannot/will not provide justice for one man,
you cannot provide justice for any man,
or any number of them.

This is precisely why the freeman mentality is necessary.
TPTB don't obey anything, except what suits them at the time
to gain 'our' submission to their whims.

Time to break our chains!

[micklemus]

Absolutely agreed. I just don't need to declare myself a freeman to do it. Doesn't matter though; important point is we're agreed on the core issue - it's time to move on from all this madness.