Differences Between Challenges to Governmental Action and Administrative Action: Judicial Review in England and Wales

When addressing legal challenges to governmental or administrative actions, it is essential to understand the nuances and differences between these two types of legal challenges. This article aims to explore these distinctions with a particular focus on the legal framework of England and Wales, where the dynamics of governmental and administrative actions, as well as the mechanisms for challenging them, are well-established.

The Concept of Governmental Action and Administrative Action

Governmental actions and administrative actions, although often interrelated, are not synonymous. Governmental actions refer to actions taken by the government itself, whereas administrative actions are carried out by government officials or agencies exercising powers granted by legislation or delegated by the government. These actions can significantly impact individuals and organizations, requiring a clear understanding of how to approach legal challenges.

Differences in Legal Challenge Procedures

When it comes to challenging governmental or administrative actions, the legal procedures and outcomes can differ. This section will explore the key differences in challenging governmental actions against reviewing administrative actions.

Challenges to Governmental Action

In England and Wales, challenges to governmental actions are limited by the Bill of Rights 1688. This historical document provides that the courts have no power to interfere in matters that are exclusively the prerogative of Parliament. Paralleling this is the concept of 'executive prerogative,' which grants the government certain powers that are not subject to judicial review. However, this does not mean that all governmental actions are beyond the scope of legal challenge. Some governmental decisions, particularly those that affect individual rights, can still be challenged, such as decisions that impact freedom of speech or other fundamental rights.

Review of Administrative Action

Administrative actions, on the other hand, can be subject to judicial review. Judicial review is a process that allows individuals to seek a court’s determination that an administrative decision is unlawful. This can include decisions made by government officials, departments, or agencies that exercise powers conferred by Parliament. The primary ground upon which an administrative decision might be challenged is that it was made in excess of the official's powers, or was irrational, unfair, or in breach of procedural fairness.

Key Differences in Terms of Scope and Outcomes

The scope and consequences of challenging governmental actions versus reviewing administrative actions can vary significantly:

Scope of Challenges

Governmental actions: Challenges often focus on matters beyond the usual judicial review as these actions are often considered to be within the executive prerogative or beyond the judiciary’s scope.

Administrative actions: Challenges are more common and frequently involve issues of statutory interpretation, procedural fairness, and the concept of 'reasonableness.' Courts can examine the legality, rationality, and fairness of decisions made by public authorities.

Outcomes of Challenges

Governmental actions: If the court finds that a government action is outside the executive prerogative, it is unlikely to seek to restrain or order the government to do something. Instead, judicial review might look at whether the decision was made reasonably and in compliance with the law.

Administrative actions: Judicial review can lead to various outcomes, including confirmation, quashing the decision, requiring the decision-maker to make it again, or making declarations about the lawfulness of the decision.

Practical Implications for Legal Practitioners and Individuals

Understanding the differences between challenges to governmental actions and reviewing administrative actions is crucial for legal practitioners and individuals who face such challenges. Legal practitioners need to be well-versed in the specific statutes and principles that govern these types of actions to provide effective legal advice and representation. Individuals who seek to challenge or review actions must consider the specific grounds and procedures applicable to the type of action they are challenging.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while both challenges to governmental actions and decisions involving administrative actions involve seeking judicial intervention, the nature of the proceedings, the applicable principles, and the potential outcomes are distinct. A thorough understanding of these differences is essential for effectively navigating the legal landscape of England and Wales, ensuring that individuals and organizations can seek appropriate redress for wrongs done by government entities.