Pattern of Development for Process Analysis, Essay Example

In order to write a Process Paper first the writer must explain fully the sequence involved in performing a particular task keeping in mind the reader of the paper will not necessarily perform the task but should fully be able to understand the process. The best way to commence this type of paper is write it at a level according to the desired audience. Second, identify the full steps of the process in a pre-writing diagram then identify the desired outcome prior to writing the paper. The writer should determine if the paper will have a directional or informational flow. Ensure that the reader understands fully the entire purpose of the process. With this in mind we will begin the process to file a Judicial Review in the United Kingdom.

I have gained insight to this topic by reading Rout ledge-Cavendish law books to understand the process of Judicial Review and the importance of this review to citizens of the United Kingdom who feel their human rights have been infringed by public officials or entities. Each stage of the process will be revealed through citing various court cases that distinguished the importance of taking this step in the judicial system. I will give reference to the famous Dodi Fayed and Princess Diana Case that went to Judicial Review v The Paparazzi. My struggles arose because I had to interpret the law cases of which I was not completely familiar with hence I had to look up other law books and sources while busy with my other courses and job. The development added to my communication skills because I am better versed with international law and legal research hence can speak better with respect to this topic.

It is first important to understand the meaning of Judicial Review which is governed by Section 31 of the Supreme Court Act 1931 and Part 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. The Queen’s Bench Division a part of the Administrative Court hears all applications for JR. “Applications for JD are only applicable against public bodies in relation to public functions and can be brought by a person with ‘sufficient interest’ in the matter under Section 31.3 of the Supreme Court Act.” (“Constitutional Law”).  In order to bring action under JR certain principles must be met which are: Is the public body taking the decision? Is it a public law issue? Is there a public element to the issue? If the answer to these questions are yes the application should proceed. There are formal grounds of which an action in JR can proceed once it is deemed a public element exists which are: What grounds does the JR claim exist? “Illegality, Irrationality or Procedural Impropriety.” Illegality is based on the premise that the person making the legal decision fully understands it and gives rise to it. Irrationality is based on the premise that no sensible person could have arrived at that decision, also called Wednesbury irrationality. Procedural impropriety is failure to act with procedural fairness. In the famous case of Princes Diana and Dodi Fayed v. The Paparazzi Dodi Fayed’s father brought action under JR stating the police failed to protect his son and the Princess against the Paparazzi. Further he claimed the Judge failed to act with procedural fairness. He was not successful with his claim.

After the court has satisfied that the application to JD is satisfied under one of these three factors it will look at the test of ‘sufficient interest’ or ‘standing’ to determine if the case meets these requirements. “The purpose of this test is to eliminate frivolous cases.” (“Constitutional Law”). The court considers the relationship of the claimant to the matter and all evidence and circumstance to make a determination as seen in R v Monopolies and Mergers Commissions.

The final test is the ‘victims test’ where the applicant must show that he/she has been directly affected by the infringement or is at risk of being affected as distinguished in Campbell and Cosans v UK [1982] where it was distinguished that children attending a school where corporal punishment was being administered were considered victims even though they were not punished by the corporal punishment directly.

If a person can satisfy the sufficient interest, standing, give rise to one of the three grounds for JR and satisfy the victim’s test they will be able to move forward with their application for Judicial Review to the Administrative Court in the United Kingdom.

References

Taylor and Francis Group (2009) Constitutional Law. London, UK:Routledge-Cavendish