Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Unlike many other legal systems, English administrative law does not recognise a general duty to give reasons for a decision of a public authority. [33] A duty to give reasons may be imposed by statute. Where it is not, common law may imply such a duty and the courts do so particularly with regard to judicial and quasi-judicial decisions. [34]
Four prisoners, Stephen Doody, John David Pierson, Elfed Wayne Smart and Kenneth Pegg, [1] serving mandatory life sentences, requested judicial review after the Home Secretary refused to release them after serving their minimum terms, but gave no reason for the decision.
For example, the common law does not impose a general duty to give reasons for a decision, but under Article 6(1) a decision-maker must give a reasoned judgment so as to enable an affected individual to decide whether to appeal.
The Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil Division) has affirmed a common law duty to give reasons for a judgment, subject to some exceptions (such as an oral judgment or a summary judgment). [77] The Court also noted that providing reasons for judgment "is a function of due process, and therefore of justice."
The court rejected this argument, ruling that the unrestricted ability to forward written arguments was sufficient to meet the duty of fairness owed to Ms. Baker. [2] Baker also argued that the duty of fairness owed to her by the Minister included a duty to provide reasons for any decision made.
In Re Siah Mooi Guat (1988), [81] the High Court noted that there is no common law duty for government ministers to give reasons for decisions. [82] However, sometimes reasons have to be given depending on what is fair on the circumstances. The Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning, discussed this duty to give reasons in his dissenting judgement in ...
Stanton retorted that she would fight as he did, with her pen. The article went on to describe the case of Abigail Hopper Gibbons, who as a landowner and taxpayer was sent an official form asking her to give reasons why she was not eligible for jury duty. She replied, "I know of none".
One ground of the application was that the applicant had a legitimate expectation to two procedural rights: the opportunity to make representations to the Minister before he considered her case under the Immigration Act, and the duty of the Minister to give reasons for his decision. [28] In his judgment, Justice T. S. Sinnathuray considered ...