Difficulties Associated With the Review of Administrative Discretion

I. Introduction

From the outset, Hogan and Morgan make it clear that controlling the review of administrative discretion is a difficult area of law to master, particularly noting “the formulation of a precise test is especially difficult because it has been made to apply to such a wide range of subject matter.” Indeed the practice of reviewing administrative discretion is one that involves many interlinking factors, and has punctuated the judicial system for many years. Even to this day, “the law in relation to…discretionary power is in a state of change.”

When entering the arena of judicial review, there is a fine line to be navigated in terms of balancing the need for judicial scrutiny and maintaining an appropriate level of curial deference. In attempting to balance these competing interests, and ultimately arrive at the fairest decision making process, the courts have progressed through a number of phases. In terms of unreasonableness, a head of review, jurisprudence has emanated from the highly controversial Wednesbury case. This essay aims to trace the progression of the law in this area, moving from Wednesbury unreasonableness through to the modern position laid out in the Meadows case, and ultimately suggest that the adoption of a proportionality test, as a separate head of review, is beneficial and would be most welcome in the Irish administrative law framework. This essay will analyse the position which Meadows has left this potentiality in. It will be noted throughout, that this is a difficult proposition, involving a large number of considerations, but simultaneously postulated that a well-reasoned proportionality test would go a long way to achieving an ideal balance for administrative review.

II. The foundations ...

... middle of paper ...

...andard for justice, and it is unfortunate that they did not do so.

In essence, the only positive to come out of the Meadows judgment is the recognition of proportionality as an important element of Irish administrative review. The proportionality elements give the court a wider power, which it is felt are beneficial and have been endorsed by commentators and courts in many other jurisdictions. The aim, here, is to balance rights correctly; while Wednesbury was a marked failure, proportionality is the correct approach. Although proportionality did not make its complete presence felt in the jurisdiction following Meadows, and this non-fulfilment may be seen as misstep in the Irish judicial reasoning on administrative discretion, the stage has certainly been set for greater development in this area, by the acceptance of some semblance of proportionality in Irish law.