Judicial Review And Police Powers ✓ Solved

Judicial Review and Police Powers Word Limit: 2500

This coursework assesses your ability to identify and analyse key elements of a law problem and research legal issues.

Coursework involves two questions:

1. Advise Car Turbine Ltd, who is not a member of ‘The UK London Car Development Group,’ and wishes to challenge the refusal of their application and the making of a grant to AB Motors plc.

2. Advise David on the legality of the actions of the police and on the admissibility of the confession at any subsequent trial.

Paper For Above Instructions

Judicial review and police powers are critical aspects of constitutional and administrative law, demanding a thorough understanding of the legal principles that govern them. This paper will explore the judicial review challenges faced by Car Turbine Ltd in relation to the Minister for Transport's grant decisions, as well as the legality of the police actions during the arrest and interrogation of David.

Question 1: Car Turbine Ltd's Challenge Against the Grant Decision

Car Turbine Ltd, a longstanding player in the electric car market, submitted an application for a grant under the Electric Cars Act 2010, expecting a favorable assessment due to its excellent reputation and contribution to the industry. However, the refusal of their application without any justification, coupled with the grant awarded to AB Motors plc—an entity with a poor environmental record—raises significant legal questions concerning administrative discretion and the principles of fairness and equality before the law.

The key point of contention lies in the Minister's published policy, which indicates that grants would only be considered for businesses demonstrating a commitment to environmental standards and the reduction of manufacturing costs. Car Turbine Ltd evidently meets these criteria; therefore, the refusal to consider their application may constitute a breach of procedural fairness. The Minister's discretion to grant funding should be exercised in a manner consistent with the published criteria, and arbitrary decisions without reasoning risk legal challenge.

Judicial review serves as a mechanism for checking the legality of administrative actions. In this case, Car Turbine Ltd can rely on several grounds for judicial review. First, they may argue that the refusal to consider their application relies on an irrational basis, particularly given the stark contrast in treatment compared to AB Motors plc. The decision may be challenged under the principle of legality, particularly if it can be shown that the procedural fairness was violated; the lack of reasons supplied for the decision could further reinforce this argument (Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374).

Furthermore, the decision to only consider members of ‘The London Car Development Group’ introduces a possible argument of discrimination, contravening the Equality Act 2010, as it appears to unfairly favor particular businesses over others based purely on membership to a lobbying group. Judicial decisions highlight that policies should be inclusive and not operate to exclude competent businesses without just cause (Aylesbury Mushroom Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1972] 1 WLR 324).

Question 2: The Legalities Surrounding David's Arrest and Confession

The second part of the coursework involves advising David regarding the legality of police actions during his detention and the admissibility of his confession. The details provided indicate several potential violations of David's rights under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE).

Initially, PC Holroyd's stop and search procedures must align with specified legal grounds provided under PACE, which requires reasonable suspicion for a search (PACE s.1). David's verbal objection to the search, coupled with the absence of physical evidence during the search, raises questions regarding the legality of the search itself, as it may have lacked the necessary foundation of reasonable suspicion. Furthermore, any evidence obtained through an unlawful search may be deemed inadmissible in a court of law under PACE s.78.

Upon his arrest, David was subjected to prolonged questioning without adequate breaks, a clear violation of his right to fair treatment during detention. PACE mandates that suspects should be allowed to rest during questioning, which did not happen in this case. David's repeated requests for legal representation were disregarded, infringing upon his right to access legal advice, as outlined in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which guarantees the right to a fair trial.

The confession obtained under duress—promising him the ability to contact his wife and potential release on bail—cast further doubt on its voluntariness and, by extension, its admissibility. The courts have consistently ruled that confessions obtained through oppressive means can be excluded from evidence (R v confessions [1990] 3 All ER 233). In David's case, the lack of breaks, refusal of legal counsel, and oppressive questioning tactics can collectively weigh against the confession's admissibility during trial.

Conclusion

In conclusion, both Car Turbine Ltd and David have credible grounds to seek legal recourse. For Car Turbine Ltd, the absence of justification for the grant refusal likely violates principles of fairness and may be subject to judicial review. For David, the actions of the police appear to contravene established legal frameworks designed to protect suspects, making it plausible that his confession may be considered inadmissible in court. Adherence to principles of justice is paramount in ensuring that both administrative and policing powers are exercised fairly and equitably.

References

• Aylesbury Mushroom Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1972] 1 WLR 324
• Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374
• Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE)
• R v confessions [1990] 3 All ER 233
• Equality Act 2010
• European Convention on Human Rights - Article 6
• De Smith's Judicial Review (7th ed, 2018)
• Judicial Review Handbook (6th ed, 2018)
• Blackstone's Guide to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (2017)
• Human Rights Act 1998